Post-surgery length of stay using multi-criteria decision-making tool.

Purpose Length of stay (LOS) in hospital after surgery varies for each patient depending on surgeon's decision that considers criticality of the surgery, patient's conditions before and after surgery, expected time to recovery and experience of the surgeon involved. Decision on patients' LOS at hospital post-surgery affects overall healthcare performance as it affects both cost and quality of care. The purpose of this paper is to develop a model for deriving the most appropriate LOS after surgical interventions. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts an action research involving multiple stakeholders (surgeon, patients/patients' relatives, hospital management and other medics). First, a conceptual model is developed using literature and experts' opinion. Second, the model is applied in three surgical interventions in a public hospital in Malta to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model. Third, the policy alternatives developed are compared to a selection of current international standards for each surgical intervention. The proposed model analyses three LOS threshold policies for three procedures using efficiency and responsiveness criteria. The entire analysis is carried out using 325 randomly selected patient files along with structured interactions with more than 50 stakeholders (surgeon, patients/patients' relatives, hospital management and other medics). A multiple criteria decision-making method is deployed for model building and data analysis. The method involves combining the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for verbal subjective judgements on prioritizing the four predictors of surgical LOS-medical, financial, social and risk, with pairwise comparisons of the sub-criteria under each criterion in line with the concerned interventions-the objective data of which are obtained from the patients' files. Findings The proposed model was successfully applied to decide on the best policy alternative for LOS for the three interventions. The best policy alternatives compared well to current international benchmarks. Research limitations/implications The proposed method needs to be tested for other interventions across various healthcare settings. Practical implications Multi-criteria decision-making tools enable resource optimization and overall improvement of patient care through the application of a scientific management technique that involves all relevant stakeholders while utilizing both subjective judgements as well as objective data. Originality/value Traditionally, the duration of post-surgery LOS is mainly based on the surgeons' clinical but also arbitrary decisions, with, as a result, having insufficiently explicable variations in LOS amongst peers for similar interventions. According to the authors' knowledge, this is the first attempt to derive post-surgery LOS using the AHP, a multiple criteria decision-making method.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Schoolbags and back pain in children between 8 and 13 years: a national study.

Schoolbag weight in schoolchildren is a recurrent and contentious issue within the educational and health sphere. Excessive schoolbag weight can lead to back pain in children, which increases the risk of chronic back pain in adulthood. There is limited research regarding this among the Maltese paediatric population. A cross-sectional study was undertaken across all schools in Malta among students aged 8-13 years (inclusive). Data were collected using a questionnaire detailing schoolbag characteristics, self-reported pain and demographic variables, such as age and gender. Structured interviews with participants were also carried out by physiotherapists. A total of 4005 participants were included in the study, with 20% of the total Malta schoolchildren population. Over 70% of the subjects had a schoolbag that exceeded the recommended 10% bag weight to body ratio. A total of 32% of the sample complained of back pain, with 74% of these defining it as low in intensity on the face pain scale-revised. The presence of back pain was statistically related to gender, body mass index (BMI), school and bag weight to body weight ratio. After adjusting for other factors, self-reported back pain in schoolchildren is independently linked to carrying heavy schoolbags. This link should be addressed to decrease the occurrence of back pain in this age group.

Continuous quality improvement in a Maltese hospital using logical framework analysis.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the application of logical framework analysis (LFA) for implementing continuous quality improvement (CQI) across multiple settings in a tertiary care hospital. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a multiple case study approach. LFA is implemented within three diverse settings, namely, intensive care unit, surgical ward, and acute in-patient psychiatric ward. First, problem trees are developed in order to determine the root causes of quality issues, specific to the three settings. Second, objective trees are formed suggesting solutions to the quality issues. Third, project plan template using logical framework (LOGFRAME) is created for each setting. Findings This study shows substantial improvement in quality across the three settings. LFA proved to be effective to analyse quality issues and suggest improvement measures objectively. Research limitations/implications This paper applies LFA in specific, albeit, diverse settings in one hospital. For validation purposes, it would be ideal to analyse in other settings within the same hospital, as well as in several hospitals. It also adopts a bottom-up approach when this can be triangulated with other sources of data. Practical implications LFA enables top management to obtain an integrated view of performance. It also provides a basis for further quantitative research on quality management through the identification of key performance indicators and facilitates the development of a business case for improvement. Originality/value LFA is a novel approach for the implementation of CQI programs. Although LFA has been used extensively for project development to source funds from development banks, its application in quality improvement within healthcare projects is scant.

Population-level cure of colorectal cancer in Malta: An analysis of patients diagnosed between 1995 and 2004.

AIM: The aim of this study was to estimate the population-level 'cure' of Maltese colorectal cancer patients diagnosed between 1995 and 2004, and to estimate the median survival time for the 'uncured' patients. METHODS AND STUDY POPULATION: Analysis was conducted on 1470 cases registered by the Malta National Cancer Register between 1995 and 2004 and followed up to end of 2010. The mean age of the patients was 66.4 (95%CI 65.8-67.1), and the number of men and women were equal. Background mortality for 1995-2010 was extracted from publicly available life tables. A mixture model with Weibull survival distribution and identity link was used to model 'cure'. RESULTS: The overall 'cured' proportion for the patients diagnosed in 1995-1999 was 45.3% (95%CI 40.2-50.5) while the 'cured' proportion for the patients diagnosed in 2000-2004 was 52.3% (95%CI 47.2-57.5). Median survival time for the 'uncured' patients increased in the second calendar period from 1.25 years (95%CI 1.04-1.45) to 1.42 years (95%CI 1.15-1.76). CONCLUSION: In Malta, as in the rest of Europe, improvements have been made in short- and long-term survival over the 15-year period under study. To continue this improvement, differences by age that still persist must be investigated and efforts focused to reduce any gaps between Malta and other European countries.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention, they are hyperactive and impulsive.Methylphenidate is the drug most often prescribed to treat children and adolescents with ADHD but, despite its widespread use, this is the first comprehensive systematic review of its benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2015 we searched six databases (CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citations Index), and two trials registers. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of relevant reviews and included trials. We contacted the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture methylphenidate to request published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. At least 75% of participants needed to have an intellectual quotient of at least 70 (i.e. normal intellectual functioning). Outcomes assessed included ADHD symptoms, serious adverse events, non-serious adverse events, general behaviour and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seventeen review authors participated in data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard methodological procedures expected within Cochrane. Data from parallel-group trials and first period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses; separate analyses were undertaken using post-cross-over data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for high risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, heterogeneity and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: The studies.We included 38 parallel-group trials (5111 participants randomised) and 147 cross-over trials (7134 participants randomised). Participants included individuals of both sexes, at a boys-to-girls ratio of 5:1, and participants' ages ranged from 3 to 18 years across most studies (in two studies ages ranged from 3 to 21 years). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. Most participants were from high-income countries.The duration of methylphenidate treatment ranged from 1 to 425 days, with an average duration of 75 days. Methylphenidate was compared to placebo (175 trials) or no intervention (10 trials). Risk of Bias.All 185 trials were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Primary outcomes. Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.90 to -0.64; 19 trials, 1698 participants; very low-quality evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -9.6 points (95% CI -13.75 to -6.38) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points; DuPaul 1991a). A change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS is considered clinically to represent the minimal relevant difference. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious (e.g. life threatening) adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.22; 9 trials, 1532 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.02 to 33.2). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Among those prescribed methylphenidate, 526 per 1000 (range 448 to 615) experienced non-serious adverse events, compared with 408 per 1000 in the control group. This equates to a 29% increase in the overall risk of any non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; 21 trials, 3132 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.29 (CI 1.06 to 1.56). The most common non-serious adverse events were sleep problems and decreased appetite. Children in the methylphenidate group were at 60% greater risk for trouble sleeping/sleep problems (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 13 trials, 2416 participants), and 266% greater risk for decreased appetite (RR 3.66, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.23; 16 trials, 2962 participants) than children in the control group.Teacher-rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.71; 5 trials, 668 participants; very low-quality evidence).A change of seven points on the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ; range 0 to 100 points; Landgraf 1998) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a MD of 8.0 points (95% CI 5.49 to 10.46) on the CHQ, which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent-reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80; 3 trials, 514 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate may improve teacher-reported ADHD symptoms, teacher-reported general behaviour, and parent-reported quality of life among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. However, the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects. Within the short follow-up periods typical of the included trials, there is some evidence that methylphenidate is associated with increased risk of non-serious adverse events, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite, but no evidence that it increases risk of serious adverse events.Better designed trials are needed to assess the benefits of methylphenidate. Given the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the particular difficulties for blinding of participants and outcome assessors point to the advantage of large, 'nocebo tablet' controlled trials. These use a placebo-like substance that causes adverse events in the control arm that are comparable to those associated with methylphenidate. However, for ethical reasons, such trials should first be conducted with adults, who can give their informed consent.Future trials should publish depersonalised individual participant data and report all outcomes, including adverse events. This will enable researchers conducting systematic reviews to assess differences between intervention effects according to age, sex, comorbidity, type of ADHD and dose. Finally, the findings highlight the urgent need for large RCTs of non-pharmacological treatments.

Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

STUDY QUESTION: Is methylphenidate beneficial or harmful for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents? METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to February 2015 for parallel and crossover randomised clinical trials comparing methylphenidate with placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents with ADHD. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) were conducted. Quality was assessed using GRADE. Teachers, parents, and observers rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: The analyses included 38 parallel group trials (n=5111, median treatment duration 49 days) and 147 crossover trials (n=7134, 14 days). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. The analysis suggested a beneficial effect of methylphenidate on teacher rated symptoms in 19 parallel group trials (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, n=1698), corresponding to a mean difference of -9.6 points on the ADHD rating scale. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.98, nine trials, n=1532; TSA adjusted intervention effect RR 0.91). Methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (1.29, 21 trials, n=3132; TSA adjusted RR 1.29). Teacher rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, five trials, n=668) A change of 7 points on the child health questionnaire (CHQ) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a mean difference of 8.0 points on the CHQ (range 0-100 points), which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, three trials, n=514). 96.8% of trials were considered high risk of bias trials according to the Cochrane guidelines. All outcomes were assessed very low quality according to GRADE. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: The results suggest that among children and adolescents with a diagnosis of ADHD, methylphenidate may improve teacher reported symptoms of ADHD and general behaviour and parent reported quality of life. However, given the risk of bias in the included studies, and the very low quality of outcomes, the magnitude of the effects is uncertain. Methylphenidate is associated with an increased risk of non-serious but not serious adverse events. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: Region Zealand Research Foundation and Copenhagen Trial Unit. Competing interests are given in the full paper on bmj.com. Full data are available in the version of this review published in The Cochrane Library.