Systematic Review of Clinical Prediction Models for the Risk of Emergency Caesarean Births.

BACKGROUND: Globally, caesarean births (CB), including emergency caesareans births (EmCB), are rising. It is estimated that nearly a third of all births will be CB by 2030. OBJECTIVES: Identify and summarise the results from studies developing and validating prognostic multivariable models predicting the risk of EmCBs. Ultimately understanding the accuracy of their development, and whether they are operationalised for use in routine clinical practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were identified using databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and Scopus with a search strategy tailored to models predicting EmCBs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective studies developing and validating clinical prediction models, with two or more covariates, to predict risk of EmCB. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted onto a proforma using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). RESULTS: In total, 8083 studies resulted in 56 unique prediction modelling studies and seven validating studies, with a total of 121 different predictors. Frequently occurring predictors included maternal height, maternal age, parity, BMI and gestational age. PROBAST highlighted 33 studies with low overall bias, and these all internally validated their model. Thirteen studies externally validated; only eight of these were graded an overall low risk of bias. Six models offered applications that could be readily used, but only one provided enough time to offer a planned caesarean birth (pCB). These well-refined models have not been recalibrated since development. Only one model, developed in a relatively low-risk population, with data collected a decade ago, remains useful at 36 weeks for arranging a pCB. CONCLUSION: To improve personalised clinical conversations, there is a pressing need for a model that accurately predicts the timely risk of an EmCB for women across diverse clinical backgrounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023384439.

Acute Management of Cervical Spinal Cord Injuries.

Traumatic cervical spinal cord injury can cause significant neurologic disability. A cervical spine injury impacts not only the neurologic system but also numerous other organ systems of the body. This complex injury requires a systematic approach to assessment and care aimed at preventing, recognizing, and treating potentially devastating secondary spinal cord injury and multisystem complications. This article focuses on the pathophysiology, initial presentation, and treatment of cervical spinal cord injury by body system.

Psychological distress in patients with metastatic cancer enrolling on phase I clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Psychological distress is common in patients with cancer and is associated with lower quality-of-life (QOL). Although distress among oncology outpatients undergoing standard therapy has been widely studied, few studies have evaluated distress among patients enrolling on Phase I therapeutic clinical trials. Thus, we aimed to characterize levels of distress and types of stressors in patients enrolling on Phase I clinical trials. METHODS: Participants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) and Problem list and measures of anxiety and depression at the time of Phase I clinical trial initiation. RESULTS: We enrolled 87 patients (95% with metastatic/incurable disease) who were initiating a Phase I clinical trial. Analyses revealed a high prevalence of distress (51%) and anxiety (28%). There were significant correlations between overall distress and practical problems (r = 0.31, p = 0.016), family problems (r = 0.35, p = 0.006), and emotional problems (r = 0.64, p < 0.001), but not physical problems (r = 0.17, p = 0.206). CONCLUSIONS: Patients may be better prepared to manage physical stressors but not practical, emotional, or family stressors at the time of Phase I trial enrollment. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Phase I trial patients experience high levels of distress which may be due to the rigors of previous therapies therapy and related emotional and social stressors related to the poor prognosis of their advanced cancer diagnosis. Distress may go unidentified without screening which is not standard practice at the time of Phase I trial consideration. Future studies should evaluate strategies to routinely identify and intervene upon addressable stressors in patients participating in Phase I clinical trials.

Improving perceptions of patient safety through standardizing handoffs from the emergency department to the inpatient setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient handoffs have long been identified as a potentially challenging time for patients because poor communication produces numerous complications. This is especially true with regards to patient care handoffs between areas such as the emergency department (ED) and inpatient setting. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze existing literature pertaining to standardized handoffs between the ED and inpatient setting and its effect on perceived patient safety to guide future research, clinical practice, and patient safety. METHODS: A review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were selected using predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria: primary research and patient handoff from the ED to the inpatient setting. Quality assessment of the studies was completed using The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. CONCLUSION: Existing studies demonstrate the potential for increased perception of patient safety as well as provider satisfaction when appropriate staff education and standardized handoff tools are implemented. There is a lack of data on the standardization of handoff tools between the ED and inpatient setting and their impact on perceived patient safety. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The combination of provider education and implementation of standardized handoff tools in the ED positively affects perceptions of patient safety and provider satisfaction. Hospital administrations should strongly consider incorporating standardized handoff tools into practice.