What makes a "successful" or "unsuccessful" discharge letter? Hospital clinician and General Practitioner assessments of the quality of discharge letters.

BACKGROUND: Sharing information about hospital care with primary care in the form of a discharge summary is essential to patient safety. In the United Kingdom, although discharge summary targets on timeliness have been achieved, the quality of discharge summaries' content remains variable. METHODS: Mixed methods study in West Midlands, England with three parts: 1. General Practitioners (GPs) sampling discharge summaries they assessed to be "successful" or "unsuccessful" exemplars, 2. GPs commenting on the reasons for their letter assessment, and 3. surveying the hospital clinicians who wrote the sampled letters for their views. Letters were examined using content analysis; we coded 15 features (e.g. "diagnosis", "GP plan") based on relevant guidelines and standards. Free text comments were analysed using corpus linguistics, and survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-three GPs participated in selecting discharge letters; 46 clinicians responded to the hospital survey. There were statistically significant differences between "successful" and "unsuccessful" inpatient letters (n = 375) in relation to inclusion of the following elements: reason for admission (99.1% vs 86.5%); diagnosis (97.4% vs 74.5%), medication changes (61.5% vs 48.9%); reasons for medication changes (32.1% vs 18.4%); hospital plan/actions (70.5% vs 50.4%); GP plan (69.7% vs 53.2%); information to patient (38.5% vs 24.8%); tests/procedures performed (97.0% vs 74.5%), and test/examination results (96.2% vs 77.3%). Unexplained acronyms and jargon were identified in the majority of the sample (≥70% of letters). Analysis of GP comments highlighted that the overall clarity of discharge letters is important for effective and safe care transitions and that they should be relevant, concise, and comprehensible. Hospital clinicians identified several barriers to producing "successful" letters, including: juniors writing letters, time limitations, writing letters retrospectively from patient notes, and template restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The failure to uniformly implement national discharge letter guidance into practice is continuing to contribute to unsuccessful communication between hospital and general practice. While the study highlighted barriers to producing high quality discharge summaries which may be addressed through training and organisational initiatives, it also indicates a need for ongoing audit to ensure the quality of letters and so reduce patient risk at the point of hospital discharge.

Development of the prototype concise safe systems checklist tool for general practice.

BACKGROUND: In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. METHODS: An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

Behavioral Cardiovascular Risk Factors　- Effect of Physical Activity and Cardiorespiratory Fitness on Cardiovascular Outcomes.

Primary and primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires not only identification of risk factors, but also appropriate and timely therapy. In order to prevent the expected increase in prevalence of CVD, it is essential that clinicians are aware of behavioral cardiovascular risk factors. A basic review is critical to clarify the difference between physical activity and fitness, as well as to discuss the role each plays in cardiovascular outcomes. We discuss observational epidemiological studies and randomized control trials that have examined the effect of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness on CVD.

Tools for primary care patient safety: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices. METHODS: Searches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan-do-study-act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.

Tools for measuring patient safety in primary care settings using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patient contacts occur in general practice but general practice patient safety has been poorly described and under-researched to date compared to hospital settings. Our objective was to produce a set of patient safety tools and indicators that can be used in general practices in any healthcare setting and develop a 'toolkit' of feasible patient safety measures for general practices in England. METHODS: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method exercise was conducted with a panel of international experts in general practice patient safety. Statements were developed from an extensive systematic literature review of patient safety in general practice. We used standard RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method rating methods to identify necessary items for assessing patient safety in general practice, framed in terms of the Structure-Process-Outcome taxonomy. Items were included in the toolkit if they received an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 with agreement (no more than two panel members rating the statement outside a 3-point distribution around the median). RESULTS: Of 205 identified statements, the panel rated 101 as necessary for assessing the safety of general practices. Of these 101 statements, 73 covered structures or organisational issues, 22 addressed processes and 6 focused on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and tested tools that can lead to interventions to improve safety outcomes in general practice. This paper reports the first attempt to systematically develop a patient safety toolkit for general practice, which has the potential to improve safety, cost effectiveness and patient experience, in any healthcare system.

General practice management after transition events: protocol for an experience-based co-design study.

BACKGROUND: Discharge from hospital is a critical part of the patient journey, particularly for older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. General practice has a key role in managing the post-discharge course of patients. A communication intervention for use in general practice in the immediate post-discharge period has great potential to improve shared decision making, enhancing patient experiences of post-discharge care. AIM: General Practice Management After Transition Events (GP-MATE) aims to produce a tool for older patients and their carers (GP-MATE), which will assist better communication with their general practice about their care after discharge, thereby improving patient safety outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Experience-based co-design (EBCD) study involving general practices across the West Midlands. METHOD: A slightly modified approach to EBCD will be followed to create GP-MATE. A focused ethnography undertaken at general practices will provide an understanding of practices' systems for post-discharge management of older patients. Semi-structured video interviews with recently discharged older patients or their carers will be edited into a trigger film. Finally, co-design workshops with older people, carers, and healthcare staff working in general practices will take place with participants from three regions across England. CONCLUSION: EBCD will be used to take a patient-centric approach towards creating GP-MATE; patients' and carers' priorities will be directly reflected within the tool. GP-MATE will be a low-cost intervention that improves health literacy, empowering patients to fill the emerging gap in continuity in the post-discharge period and enhancing patient experiences of post-discharge care.

Herding-like behaviour in medical decision making: An experimental study investigating general practitioners' prescription behaviour.

Previous observational studies have indicated that social influences, such as arising from herding-like behaviour, can contribute to medical errors. In this study, we experimentally examined whether general practitioners (GPs) would follow incorrect prescription recommendations from fellow GP or specialists. To investigate this, we conducted an online survey with 475 GPs practicing in England that included two case vignettes. Case vignette 1 focused on sleeping tablets, and case vignette 2 was centred around antibiotics. The vignettes were presented in random order, and within each vignette, study participants were assigned to one of three experimental conditions: control condition (lacking peer recommendation), fellow GP condition (including a recommendation from a fellow GP not aligned with best practice clinical guidelines), or specialist condition (including a recommendation from a specialist not aligned with best practice clinical guidelines). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of GPs who prescribed medication that deviated from best practice clinical guidelines. We found that, in both case vignettes, the percentage of respondents prescribing such medication was highest in those assigned to the specialist condition, followed by those assigned to the control condition. It was lowest in those assigned to the fellow GP condition (case vignette 1: 73.8% vs. 55.6% vs. 36.6% and case vignette 2: 24.0% vs. 12.4% vs. 10.1%). In the case of vignette 1, the difference between the fellow GP condition and the control condition is statistically significant, suggesting that GPs are less likely to prescribe sleeping tablets when recommended by a fellow GP. This implies that GPs are more inclined to prescribe non-guideline-recommended medication when advised by specialists. This study is the first to experimentally demonstrate that physician herding behaviour can result in prescription errors. Future research could extend this inquiry to diverse contexts, including diagnosis.

Co-producing an online patient public community research hub: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of national institute for health research (NIHR) research champions in England.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) should be embedded as part of researchers' everyday practice. However, this can be challenging. Creating a digital presence for PPIE as part of Higher Education Institutes' (HEIs) infrastructure may be one way of supporting this. This can support how information is made available to patients and members of the public, but relatively little is known about how HEIs can best do this. Our aim was to develop a university website for patients and members of the public to learn about ways to get actively involved in research and be able to access the results of health and social care research. METHODS: This project involved working as partners with five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. NIHR Research Champions are volunteers who raise awareness and share experiences about health and social care research. Content of a prototype Patient Public Community Research Hub website was co-produced with the Research Champions, and then 15 NIHR Research Champions from across England were asked for their views about the website. FINDINGS: The information collected told us that the Patient Public Community Research Hub was viewed as being beneficial for increasing visibility of PPIE opportunities and sharing the findings of studies though needs further work: to make the information more user-friendly; to improve the methods for directing people to the site and to create new ways of connecting with people. It provides a foundation for further co-development and evaluation. A set of recommendations has been developed that may be of benefit to other HEIs and organisations who are committed to working with patients and members of the public.

Sharing the results of health and care research studies with patients and members of the public could be improved. In many cases, patients and members of the public do not receive the results of studies they have taken part in. As well, it should also be easy for patients and members of the public to find out about opportunities to get involved with researchers in the development of their research. Universities have an important role to play in providing opportunities for patients and members of the public to be involved in the development of research studies, as well as sharing the findings of their studies. Creating an online patient public community research hub for this purpose was co-produced with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. The aims of this research were to find out what research volunteers within the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), in the UK, would like to find on a university website about health and care research. This research aimed to understand how best to raise awareness about how people can get involved in research. It also aimed to understand how best to share information about research, with patients and members of the public, from a university website. Five NIHR Research Champions from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (including younger and older people) helped to develop a set of webpages on a university website, called the Patient Public Community Research Hub. Once the initial online hub was created, online interviews were held with another 15 NIHR Research Champions. The interviews were to help the researcher to understand what they thought about the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The results from the interviews were analysed and grouped into themes. The themes helped to tell us what NIHR Research Champions felt patients and members of the public would want to see on the Patient Public Community Research Hub and what areas needed improving. A co-produced set of recommendations was created with the NIHR Research Champions who helped to shape the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The recommendations are for researchers, other organisations, or services to use. These recommendations along with the findings may help to improve how information gets shared about the results of research and ways in which patients and members of the public can get involved.

Implementation of decarbonisation actions in general practice: a systematic review and narrative synthesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing recognition of the importance of primary care in addressing climate change. The World Organisation of Family Doctors has urged general practitioners worldwide to commit to tackling climate change and to serve as agents of systemic and individual change. Though an increasing number of resources have become available to support the decarbonisation of primary care, there remains a lack of evidence about how primary care teams are using them, their reach across practices, their level of adoption and maintenance, their cost impact and their effect on carbon emissions. This systematic review aims to understand how primary care, with a focus on general practice or equivalent settings within the context of primary care, is implementing decarbonisation actions to reduce carbon emissions arising from its operations, assess efficacy of the actions and generate recommendations on how to assist and accelerate their implementation and effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The literature search will be conducted on Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and ProQuest, from 2007 to 29 March 2024. Article screening will be based on specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Narrative synthesis will be used to analyse and integrate findings to offer new insights into key mechanisms that support decarbonisation in general practice and help refine an initial programme theory. The reporting of the systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review did not involve the collection or analysis of any data that was not included in previously published research in the public domain. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023470889.

GPs' views on emergency care treatment plans: an online survey.

BACKGROUND: A holistic approach to emergency care treatment planning is needed to ensure that patients' preferences are considered should their clinical condition deteriorate. To address this, emergency care and treatment plans (ECTPs) have been introduced. Little is known about their use in general practice. AIM: To find out GPs' experiences of, and views on, using ECTPs. DESIGN & SETTING: Online survey of GPs practising in England. METHOD: A total of 841 GPs were surveyed using the monthly online survey provided by medeConnect, a market research company. RESULTS: Forty-one per cent of responders' practices used Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plans for ECTP, 8% used other ECTPs, and 51% used Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms. GPs were the predominant professional group completing ECTPs in the community. There was broad support for a wider range of community-based health and social care professionals being able to complete ECTPs. There was no system for reviewing ECTPs in 20% of responders' practices. When compared with using a DNACPR form, GPs using a ReSPECT form for ECTP were more comfortable having conversations about emergency care treatment with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.69) and family members (OR =1.85, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.87). CONCLUSION: The potential benefits and challenges of widening the pool of health and social care professionals initiating and/or completing the ECTP process needs consideration. ReSPECT plans appear to make GPs more comfortable with ECTP discussions, supporting their implementation. Practice-based systems for reviewing ECTP decisions should be strengthened.

Patient and relative experiences of the ReSPECT process in the community: an interview-based study.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was launched in the UK in 2016. ReSPECT is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals, patients, and their relatives about preferences for treatment in future emergencies; however, no study has investigated patients' and relatives' experiences of ReSPECT in the community. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients and relatives in community settings experience the ReSPECT process and engage with the completed form. METHODS: Patients who had a ReSPECT form were identified through general practice surgeries in three areas in England; either patients or their relatives (where patients lacked capacity) were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, focusing on the participants' understandings and experiences of the ReSPECT process and form. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen interviews took place (six with patients, four with relatives, three with patient and relative pairs). Four themes were developed: (1) ReSPECT records a patient's wishes, but is entangled in wider relationships; (2) healthcare professionals' framings of ReSPECT influence patients' and relatives' experiences; (3) patients and relatives perceive ReSPECT as a do-not-resuscitate or end-of-life form; (4) patients' and relatives' relationships with the ReSPECT form as a material object vary widely. Patients valued the opportunity to express their wishes and conceptualised ReSPECT as a process of caring for themselves and for their family members' emotional wellbeing. Participants who described their ReSPECT experiences positively said healthcare professionals clearly explained the ReSPECT process and form, allocated sufficient time for an open discussion of patients' preferences, and provided empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations. In cases where participants said healthcare professionals did not provide clear explanations or did not engage them in a conversation, experiences ranged from confusion about the form and how it would be used to lingering feelings of worry, upset, or being burdened with responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: When ReSPECT conversations involved an open discussion of patients' preferences, clear information about the ReSPECT process, and empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations, working with a healthcare professional to co-develop a record of treatment preferences and recommendations could be an empowering experience, providing patients and relatives with peace of mind.

Understanding the inclusion and participation of adults from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) in health and care research in the UK: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) experience poorer health outcomes, have many long-term conditions and are persistently under-represented in health and care research. There is limited focus on programmes, or interventions that support inclusion and participation of people from BAFDC in research. Through coproduction, this realist review seeks to provide a programme theory explaining what context and mechanisms may be required, to produce outcomes that facilitate inclusion and participation for people from BAFDC in health and care research, in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A group of people from BAFDC with lived and professional experience, representing all levels of the health and care research system, will coproduce a realist review with a team of African-Caribbean, white British and white British of Polish origin health and care researchers. They will follow Pawson's five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The coproduction group will help to map the current landscape, identifying key issues that may inhibit or facilitate inclusion. Data will be extracted, analysed and synthesised following realist logic analysis, identifying and explaining how context and mechanisms are conceptualised in the literature and the types of contextual factors that exist and impact on inclusion and participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The coproduction group will agree an ethical approach considering accountability, responsibility and power dynamics, by establishing a terms of reference, taking a reflexive approach and coproducing an ethical framework. Findings will be disseminated to BAFDC and the research community through arts-based methods, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, agreeing a coproduced strategy for dissemination. Ethical review is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517124.

Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in UK general practice: a qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, community-based nurses, care home staff, patients and their relatives.

Background The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) has been implemented in many areas of the UK. It is unclear how ReSPECT is used in primary and community care settings. Aim To investigate how the ReSPECT process is understood and experienced in the community by clinicians, social care staff, patients, their relatives, and identify obstacles and enablers to its implementation. Design and setting. A qualitative interview and focus group study across 13 general practices in three areas in England. Method We interviewed GPs, specialist nurses, patients and relatives, and senior care home staff. Focus groups were conducted with community-nurses, paramedics, and home-care workers. Questions focused on understanding experiences of and engagements with ReSPECT. We analysed data using thematic analysis and a coding framework drawn from Normalisation Process Theory. Results Participants included 21 GPs, five specialist nurses, nine patients, seven relatives, 31 care home staff, nine community nurses, seven home-care workers and two paramedics. Participants supported ReSPECT regarding it as a tool to facilitate person-centred care. GPs faced challenges in timing introduction of ReSPECT and ensuring sufficient time to complete plans with patients. ReSPECT conversations worked best when there was a trusting relationship between clinician and patient (and their family). Anticipating future illness trajectories was difficult yet plans were rarely reviewed. Interpreting recommendations in emergencies was challenging. Conclusion The ReSPECT process has not translated as well as expected in the community setting. A revised approach is needed to address the challenges of implementation in this context.

Effects of Whey Protein Supplementation on Inflammatory Marker Concentrations in Older Adults.

Although whey protein isolate (WPI) has been shown to be immunomodulatory, its ability to modulate production of a broad array of inflammatory markers has not previously been investigated in healthy adults. We investigated the effects of daily supplementation with 35 g of WPI for 3 weeks on inflammatory marker concentrations in the blood serum and feces of 14 older adult subjects (mean age: 59). Serum was analyzed using a multiplex assay to quantify the cytokines IFN-γ, IL-1ß, IL-1RA, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, IL-9, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-13, IL-17A and TNF-α. Fecal samples were analyzed using an ELISA for the inflammatory markers calprotectin and lactoferrin. Our results yielded high inter-subject variability and a significant proportion of cytokine concentrations that were below our method's limit of quantification. We observed decreases in serum IL-12p70 in the washout phase compared with baseline, as well as the washout stage for fecal lactoferrin relative to the intervention stage. Serum IL-13 was also significantly reduced during the intervention and washout stages. Our data suggest that whey protein supplementation did not significantly alter most inflammatory markers measured but can alter concentrations of some inflammatory markers in healthy older adults. However, our study power of 35% suggests the number of participants was too low to draw strong conclusions from our data.

AVOIDable medical errors in invasive procedures: Facts on the ground - An NHS staff survey.

BACKGROUND: Never Events represent a serious problem with a high burden on healthcare providers' facilities. Despite introducing various safety checklists and precautions, many Never Events are reported yearly. OBJECTIVE: This survey aims to assess awareness and compliance with the safety standards and obtain recommendations from the National Health Service (NHS) staff on preventative measures. METHODS: An online survey of 45 questions has been conducted directed at NHS staff involved in invasive procedures. The questions were designed to assess the level of awareness, training and education delivered to the staff on patient safety. Moreover, we designed a set of focused questions to assess compliance with the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs) guidance. Open questions were added to encourage the staff to give practical recommendations on tackling and preventing these incidents. Invitations were sent through social media, and the survey was kept live from 20/11/2021 to 23/04/2022. RESULTS: Out of 700 invitations sent, 75 completed the survey (10.7%). 96% and 94.67% were familiar with the terms Never Events and near-miss, respectively. However, 52% and 36.49% were aware of National and Local Safety Standards for Invasive procedures (NatSSIPs-LocSSIPs), respectively. 28 (37.33%) had training on preventing medical errors. 48 (64%) believe that training on safety checklists should be delivered during undergraduate education. Fourteen (18.67%) had experiences when the checklists failed to prevent medical errors. 53 (70.67%) have seen the operating list or the consent forms containing abbreviations. Thirty-three (44%) have a failed counting reconciliation algorithm. NHS staff emphasised the importance of multi-level checks, utilisation of specific checklists, patient involvement in the safety checks, adequate staffing, avoidance of staff change in the middle of a procedure and change of list order, and investment in training and education on patient safety. CONCLUSION: This survey showed a low awareness of some of the principal patient safety aspects and poor compliance with NatSSIPs recommendations. Checklists fail on some occasions to prevent medical errors. Process redesign creating a safe environment, and enhancing a safety culture could be the key. The study presented the recommendations of the staff on preventative measures.

Association of a variant upstream of growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11) on carcass traits in crossbred beef cattle.

The mature peptide of growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11) in Bos taurus breeds, shares 90% amino acid sequence similarity to myostatin (MSTN), where loss-of-function mutations result in muscular hyperplasia causing a phenotype known as double-muscling. Mutations in the MSTN coding sequence increase muscle mass and reduce fat and bone tissues, but also confer poor fertility, reduced stress tolerance, and increased calf mortality. GDF11 influences skeletal muscle development in mice, and muscular atrophy can be induced by exogenous GDF11 treatment. To date, there are no reports of GDF11's role in bovine carcass traits. To determine associations between GDF11 and carcass quality in beef cattle, bovine GDF11 was examined in crossbred Canadian beef cattle populations during finishing. Few coding variants were found in this functionally important gene, but an upstream variant c.1-1951C > T (rs136619751) with a minor allele frequency of 0.31 was identified and further genotyped in two separate populations of crossbred steers (n = 415 and 450). CC animals had lower backfat thickness, marbling percentage, and yield score than CT or TT animals (P < 0.001 and < 0.05). These data suggest a role of GDF11 in carcass quality in beef cattle and may provide a selection tool to improve carcass traits in cattle.

Occurrence of pulmonary oil microembolism (POME) with intramuscular testosterone undecanoate injection: literature review.

Testosterone undecanoate injections (TU), an oil-based depot, is a universal hormonal-based treatment which has been associated with pulmonary oil microembolism (POME). However, the rate of POME during routine intramuscular (IM) TU injection is unknown. Here, we conduct a peer-reviewed literature review investigating POME incidents in the setting of TU injections. A total of 48 articles were selected in the literature review, which included 29 studies that used TU and reported its effects. Relatively few POME cases were reported across multiple published studies, including those that focused particularly on the occurrence rate of POME while administrating IM TU. Of the 29 individual studies, which included 7 978 patients, eight studies reported a total of 88 incidence of POME cases or cough. This included episodes of cough that were not originally declared as POME. One post market review reported 223 cases per 3,107,652 injections. When POME did occur, almost all cases resolved spontaneously within 60 min without intervention. Overall, POME was observed to be rare.

Recommendations for a Military Health System Auditory Blast Injury Prevention Standard.

INTRODUCTION: Although existing auditory injury prevention standards benefit warfighters, the Department of Defense could do more to understand and address auditory injuries (e.g., hearing loss, tinnitus, and central processing deficits) among service members. The Blast Injury Prevention Standards Recommendation (BIPSR) Process is designed to address the needs of all the Military Services for biomedically valid Military Health System (MHS) Blast Injury Prevention Standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through the BIPSR Process, stakeholders provided their intended uses and requested functionalities for an MHS Blast Injury Prevention Standard. The BIPSR Process established a broad-based, non-advocacy panel of auditory injury Subject Matter Expert (SME) Panel with members drawn from industry, academia, and government. The SME Panel selected evaluation factors, weighted priorities, and then evaluated the resulting candidate MHS Auditory Blast Injury Prevention Standards against the evaluation criteria. The SME Panel members provided rationales for their decisions, documented discussions, and used iterative rounds of feedback to promote consensus building among members. The BIPSR Process used multi-attribute utility theory to combine members' evaluations and compare the candidate standards. RESULTS: The SME Panel identified and collated information about existing auditory injury datasets to identify gaps and promote data sharing and comprehensive evaluations of standards for preventing auditory blast injury. The panel evaluated the candidate standards and developed recommendations for an MHS Blast Injury Prevention Standard. CONCLUSIONS: The BIPSR Process illuminated important characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of candidate standards and existing datasets (e.g., limited human exposure data to evaluate the validity of injury prediction) for auditory blast injury prevention. The evaluation resulted in the recommendation to use the 8-hour Equivalent Level (LAeq8hr) as the interim MHS Auditory Blast Injury Prevention Standard while the community performs additional research to fill critical knowledge gaps.

Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 734, Weapon Systems Line of Inquiry: Overview and Blast Overpressure Tool-A Module for Human Body Blast Wave Exposure for Safer Weapons Training.

INTRODUCTION: Experiences by service members in recent conflicts and training environments illuminate concerns about the possible effects of blast overpressure (BOP) exposure on brain health. Section 734 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (Public Law 115-91) requires that the Secretary of Defense conducts a longitudinal medical study on blast pressure exposure of members of the Armed Forces during combat and training, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs was assigned responsibility for fulfilling requirements. The study's goal is to improve DoD's understanding of the impact of BOP exposure from weapon systems on service members' brain health and inform policy for risk mitigation, unit readiness, and health care decisions. This article focuses on the activities of the Weapon Systems Line of Inquiry (LOI) and the development of a prototype BOP Tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DoD established the Section 734 Workgroup, which developed a program structure with five LOIs. The Weapon Systems LOI coordinated, collated, and analyzed information on BOP resulting from heavy weapons and blast events to inform strategies, and accounted for emerging research on health effects and performance. Ongoing research was leveraged to develop a BOP Tool as a standalone module and for integration into the Range Managers Toolkit. RESULTS: The effort identified opportunities for the DoD to improve the clarity of communications about BOP exposure, risk, and safety; establish methods to leverage emerging research; and develop a prototype BOP Tool to predict exposure loads when firing heavy weapons in training. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that the DoD revises requirements and policy to improve and standardize safety guidance throughout research, development, testing, and evaluation; acquisition; and training. The validated BOP Tool allows users to generate a scenario to predict BOP exposure and allows service members to modify them during planning for safer training.

A scoping review of communication tools applicable to patients and their primary care providers after discharge from hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Transitions from hospital to home are high-risk episodes. Communication problems between patients/carers and their primary healthcare providers are a central part of the risk. This literature review aimed to identify any existing tools or information (including secondary care instruments) that would facilitate designing new communication instruments for primary care to manage and mitigate risk at discharge. METHOD: Five databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and Cochrane) were searched using a three stem approach (primary/transitional care, discharge period, communication). A dual reviewer system was used, following PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: From 61 full text articles a total of ten tools were found, 25 articles contained other useful content, 19 further tools were found in grey literature. Most material originated from the USA and described hospital-based transitional care interventions. CONCLUSION: No ready-made patient/provider communication tool for the post-discharge period in primary care was found. Future communication tools should enhance education and engagement of patients so they feel able to initiate communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Collating post-discharge communication material is of importance to improving the safety of care transitions and will enable creation of new tools specifically designed for primary care. These tools will improve patient activation ('the knowledge, skills and confidence a person has in managing their own health and care') with the ultimate aim of reducing error and harm in primary care through improved communication of healthcare decisions.