Non-surgical treatment for arterial leg ulcers: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: Arterial leg ulcers (ALUs) pose a considerable burden on patients and health services. The cornerstone of treatment is revascularisation; however, this is not always possible and does not necessarily guarantee ulcer healing. Alternative treatment options are therefore also important. This narrative review aims to summarise the evidence available for non-surgical treatment of ALUs, including topical therapy, pharmacological agents, therapeutic angiogenesis and devices. METHODS: A literature search was performed in November 2020 to identify studies reporting data on the non-surgical management of ALUs. Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials and meta-analyses that investigated conservative or medical interventions on patients with intractable ALUs, and which provided quantitative data on ulcer healing were included. Following screening, studies that met the inclusion criteria underwent a data extraction process and findings were synthesised and categorised narratively. RESULTS: In total, 14 controlled trials were selected for inclusion and analysed based on experimental protocol and outcome measures. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence available for the use of short-term systemic prostanoids, ultrasound therapy and pneumatic compression. There are limitations to these options including side effects, patient tolerance due to pain and availability in clinical practice. Further research is needed to improve treatment options for this complex group.

The impact of longitudinal integrated clerkships on patient care: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LIC) are a relatively novel type of clinical placement model within medical education, particularly within the UK. The research on LICs primarily focuses on the impact of the model on students, tutors, communities, and organisations. The impact of LICs on patients has not yet been adequately synthesised. This systematic review aims to fill this gap by examining empirical evidence regarding the impact of LICs on patient care using quality-of-care measures, namely, health process measures and outcome measures. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Education Research Complete, CINAHL Complete, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening process for study selection. Results across studies were analysed and summarised by thematic analysis. RESULTS: The reviewers screened 1632 records. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria following a full-text review, from which four themes were created. Three themes describe health process measures, including: 1) Advocacy within healthcare system, 2) Provision of supplementary and personalised care, and 3) Providing companionship with care. One theme described a health outcome measure: Therapeutic Alliance. CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates an overall beneficial impact of LICs on patient health processes and outcome measures. However, the available evidence is weak and limited. Further research is required to illuminate the true impact of LICs on patient health.