Aversive conditioning increases short-term wariness but does not change habitat use in black bears associated with conflict.

Conflict between humans and black bears (Ursus americanus) occurs throughout North America with increasing public demand to replace lethal management with non-lethal methods, such as aversive conditioning (AC). AC aims to teach animals to associate negative stimuli with humans or their infrastructure. We sought to test the efficacy of AC using radio-collared black bears in Whistler, British Columbia, by monitoring individuals and assigning those in conflict with people to control or treatment groups. We measured wariness using overt reaction distance, displacement distance, and reaction to researchers before, during and after executing 3-5-day AC programs that consisted of launching projectiles at bears in the treatment group. We also assessed predictors of successful AC events (i.e., leaving at a run), changes in bear use of human-dominated habitat during the day and at night, and the effects of including a sound stimulus to signal the beginning and end of AC events. Among treated bears, overt reaction distance increased by 46.5% and displacement distance increased by 69.0% following AC programs, whereas both overt reaction distance and displacement distance decreased over time among control group bears. Each additional AC event during the previous 30 days increased likelihood of bear departure in response to researcher presence by 4.5%. The success of AC events varied among individuals, declined with distance to cover, and increased with exposure to previous AC events. Projectiles launched from guns were slightly more effective at causing bears to displace compared to those launched from slingshots, and sound stimuli decreased the likelihood of a successful AC event. AC did not alter diurnal use by bears of human-dominated habitat. Our results suggest that AC effectively increases short-term wariness in black bears but does not alter bear use of human-dominated spaces, highlighting the importance of proactive attractant management and prevention of food conditioning.

Survival after high-dose chemotherapy for refractory and recurrent Ewing sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: outcome of primary refractory or recurrent Ewing sarcoma (RRES) is poor and the role of high-dose therapy (HDT) remains uncertain. We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated for RRES in the London Sarcoma Service (LSS) over a 22-year period with the aim of adding to the current literature and developing a prognostic risk score to aid clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients were included; 64 patients received HDT, 98 standard non-HDT chemotherapy and 34 no systemic therapy. At RRES, median age was 20 years and seventy-four per cent of patients had progressed or relapsed within 24 months. Median overall survival for HDT and non-HDT patients was 76 months (95% CI 34.8-117.2) and 10.5 months (95% CI 8.9-12.1), respectively. Two and five-year post-relapse survival (PRS) for HDT patients was 67.9% (SE 5.9) and 52.7% (SE 6.5), and for non-HDT patients, 20.5% (SE 4.2) and 2% (SE 1.5). Four prognostic factors significant on multivariate analysis were assigned a score of one point each, creating good (score 0), intermediate (score 1-2) and poor (score 3-4) prognosis groups. The increased score was significantly associated with reduced PRS. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that in RRES, HDT is associated with superior outcomes compared with non-HDT chemotherapy. RRES patients can be risk-stratified according to a predictive prognostic index we have developed, with the potential benefit of HDT observed even in patients with poor prognostic scores.

Improving Clinician Decisions and Communication in Critical Care Using Novel Information Technology.

INTRODUCTION: The electronic medical record (EMR) is presumed to support clinician decisions by documenting and retrieving patient information. Research shows that the EMR variably affects patient care and clinical decision making. The way information is presented likely has a significant impact on this variability. Well-designed representations of salient information can make a task easier by integrating information in useful patterns that clinicians use to make improved clinical judgments and decisions. Using Cognitive Systems Engineering methods, our research team developed a novel health information technology (NHIT) that interfaces with the EMR to display salient clinical information and enabled communication with a dedicated text-messaging feature. The software allows clinicians to customize displays according to their role and information needs. Here we present results of usability and validation assessments of the NHIT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our subjects were physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and physician trainees. Two arms of this study were conducted, a usability assessment and then a validation assessment. The usability assessment was a computer-based simulation using deceased patient data. After a brief five-minute orientation, the usability assessment measured individual clinician performance of typical tasks in two clinical scenarios using the NHIT. The clinical scenarios included patient admission to the unit and patient readiness for surgery. We evaluated clinician perspective about the NHIT after completing tasks using 7-point Likert scale surveys. In the usability assessment, the primary outcome was participant perceptions about the system's ease of use compared to the legacy system.A subsequent cross-over, validation assessment compared performance of two clinical teams during simulated care scenarios: one using only the legacy IT system and one using the NHIT in addition to the legacy IT system. We oriented both teams to the NHIT during a 1-hour session on the night before the first scenario. Scenarios were conducted using high-fidelity simulation in a real burn intensive care unit room. We used observations, task completion times, semi-structured interviews, and surveys to compare user decisions and perceptions about their performance. The primary outcome for the validation assessment was time to reach accurate (correct) decision points. RESULTS: During the usability assessment, clinicians were able to complete all tasks requested. Clinicians reported the NHIT was easier to use and the novel information display allowed for easier data interpretation compared to subject recollection of the legacy EMR.In the validation assessment, a more junior team of clinicians using the NHIT arrived at accurate diagnoses and decision points at similar times as a more experienced team. Both teams noted improved communication between team members when using the NHIT and overall rated the NHIT as easier to use than the legacy EMR, especially with respect to finding information. CONCLUSIONS: The primary findings of these assessments are that clinicians found the NHIT easy to use despite minimal training and experience and that it did not degrade clinician efficiency or decision-making accuracy. These findings are in contrast to common user experiences when introduced to new EMRs in clinical practice.