Compact portable sources of high-LET radiation: Validation and potential application for galactic cosmic radiation countermeasure discovery.

Implementation of a systematic program for galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) countermeasure discovery will require convenient access to ground-based space radiation analogs. The current gold standard approach for GCR simulation is to use a particle accelerator for sequential irradiation with ion beams representing different GCR components. This has limitations, particularly for studies of non-acute responses, strategies that require robotic instrumentation, or implementation of complex in vitro models that are emerging as alternatives to animal experimentation. Here we explore theoretical and practical issues relating to a different approach to provide a high-LET radiation field for space radiation countermeasure discovery, based on use of compact portable sources to generate neutron-induced charged particles. We present modeling studies showing that DD and DT neutron generators, as well as an AmBe radionuclide-based source, generate charged particles with a linear energy transfer (LET) distribution that, within a range of biological interest extending from about 10 to 200 keV/µm, resembles the LET distribution of reference GCR radiation fields experienced in a spacecraft or on the lunar surface. We also demonstrate the feasibility of using DD neutrons to induce 53BP1 DNA double-strand break repair foci in the HBEC3-KT line of human bronchial epithelial cells, which are widely used for studies of lung carcinogenesis. The neutron-induced foci are larger and more persistent than X ray-induced foci, consistent with the induction of complex, difficult-to-repair DNA damage characteristic of exposure to high-LET (>10 keV/µm) radiation. We discuss limitations of the neutron approach, including low fluence in the low LET range (<10 keV/µm) and the absence of certain long-range features of high charge and energy particle tracks. We present a concept for integration of a compact portable source with a multiplex microfluidic in vitro culture system, and we discuss a pathway for further validation of the use of compact portable sources for countermeasure discovery.

Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature.

Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org.

Ethical issues arising from variation in health services utilization at the end of life.

Research on health services delivery, particularly at the end of life, has demonstrated that more care does not necessarily lead to better technical quality, patient satisfaction, or outcomes. These findings raise three ethical issues: (1) justice in the allocation of scarce resources across health service areas; (2) nonmaleficence in the provision of appropriate amounts of care to patients; and (3) transparency about local healthcare practice so patients can make enlightened decisions about healthcare choices. We conclude that in this era of healthcare accountability, managers and clinicians can use these ethical principles to drive change in the process of providing more efficient, more effective, and more patient-centered care, especially at the end of life.