Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines.

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation). WARFARIN: The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance. DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines.

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage vs. thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 receptor antagonists (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor): For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation);For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation). Warfarin: The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from BSG 2008 guidance. Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC): For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥ 48 hours before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30 - 50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 hours before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

An in-depth and updated perspective on determinants of cervical cancer screening among central Appalachian women.

Although cervical cancer rates in the U.S. have declined sharply, certain groups remain at elevated risk, including Appalachian women. To establish culturally-relevant cervical cancer prevention programs requires a comprehensive, current understanding of the factors which influence women's decisions to undergo Pap tests. Since most studies that found low rates of Pap test use in Appalachia were carried out decades ago, an in-depth update is warranted. Local, trained interviewers conducted interviews with rarely or never screened Appalachian women from Kentucky and West Virginia. Sessions were tape recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed. Participants (N = 25) suggested the following positive influences on obtaining screening: having an orientation toward the use of preventive health services; having health insurance and access to a good medical environment; and maintaining a flexible enough schedule to keep appointments. Screening barriers included: fear of subjecting oneself to medical scrutiny because of obesity or being a smoker; inadequate health care access such as clinician shortages, scarcity of specialty providers, long travel time to services, and clinic schedules that do not accommodate working women; and lack of providers' recommendations. Rarely mentioned were some previously reported factors including male relatives' refusal to permit Pap tests, concern over privacy, and lack of belief in Pap tests.

Implementing the National Local Public Health System Performance Assessment: evaluation of a readiness process in Kentucky.

The objectives of the study described in this article were to test training and resource materials for preparing Kentucky public health agency staff to lead the National Local Public Health System Performance Assessment and to identify barriers encountered in implementation. Readiness supports provided to five Kentucky district and county health departments that led the system assessment process in 12 counties were evaluated using training pre- and posttests, performance assessment posttests, observations, and interviews. The training and materials provided in this study appeared to be the minimum needed for these Kentucky health departments. Training sequences need to allow time for independent study of assessment processes, and training in using and interpreting the assessment instrument should be included. Partner orientation materials targeted for nonpublic health partners would be useful. In Kentucky, barriers to completing the assessment included questions about its purpose and benefits and the lack of a self-identified local public health system. Formal training of health department staff, committed leadership, and adequate personnel resources can help overcome these barriers. The health departments that brought together system partners for the performance assessment considered it a valuable community-building educational event.

Local public health agency capacity and its relationship to public health system performance.

he study described in this article identifies local public health agency capacity characteristics that are related to their local public health systems' performance scores on the CDC's National Public Health Performance Standards Program assessment instrument. Public health system performance scores from a test version of the National Public Health Performance Standards instrument (5b) from county and city/county jurisdictions in three states were matched to organizational capacity data from the 1997 National Association of County and City Health Officials profile of health departments, resulting in a sample of 152 jurisdictions. Twenty-eight capacity variables from the profile and all 10 scores on the Essential Public Health Services plus the total performance score were analyzed in 11 separate multivariate regression models. Public health agency capacities in the areas of funding, organizational leadership, and certain nonprovider partnerships were found to be significantly related to public health system performance. Further study is needed to determine if these relationships between agency capacities and system performance are found, with data from other states now using the nationally released performance assessment instruments and with capacity measures that are more specific for evaluating public health system performance.