RESUMEN
SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Dermatologicos/normas , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Neoplasias Cutáneas/cirugía , Humanos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Dermatologicos/normas , Neoplasias Cutáneas/cirugía , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Dermatologicos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Neoplasias Cutáneas/cirugía , Humanos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned a multistakeholder Work Group to develop recommendations for autologous breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps. A systematic literature review was performed and a stringent appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research. The Work Group assigned to draft this guideline was unable to find evidence of superiority of one technique over the other (deep inferior epigastric perforator versus pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap) in autologous tissue reconstruction of the breast after mastectomy. Presently, based on the evidence reported here, the Work Group recommends that surgeons contemplating breast reconstruction on their next patient consider the following: the patient's preferences and risk factors, the setting in which the surgeon works (academic versus community practice), resources available, the evidence shown in this guideline, and, equally important, the surgeon's technical expertise. Although theoretical superiority of one technique may exist, this remains to be reported in the literature, and future methodologically robust studies are needed.
Asunto(s)
Mamoplastia/métodos , Colgajos Quirúrgicos , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Arterias Epigástricas/cirugía , Femenino , Humanos , Mastectomía , Satisfacción del Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Recto del Abdomen/cirugía , ReoperaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: For the first time ever, as emphasized by inclusion in the Healthy People 2020 goals, sleep health is an emphasis of national health aims. The National Healthy Sleep Awareness Project (NHSAP) was tasked to propose questions for inclusion in the next Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a survey that includes a number of questions that target behaviors thought to impact health, as a means to measure community sleep health. The total number of questions could not exceed five, and had to include an assessment of the risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: An appointed workgroup met via teleconference and face-to-face venues to develop an inventory of published survey questions being used to identify sleep health, to develop a framework on which to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of current survey questions concerning sleep, and to develop recommendations for sleep health and disease surveillance questions going forward. RESULTS: The recommendation was to focus on certain existing BRFSS questions pertaining to sleep duration, quality, satisfaction, daytime alertness, and to add to these other BRFSS existing questions to make a modified STOP-BANG questionnaire (minus the N for neck circumference) to assess for risk of OSA. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep health is an important dimension of health that has previously received less attention in national health surveys. We believe that 5 questions recommended for the upcoming BRFSS question banks will assist as important measures of sleep health, and may help to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve sleep health in our nation.
Asunto(s)
Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Encuestas Epidemiológicas/métodos , Trastornos del Sueño-Vigilia/epidemiología , Sistema de Vigilancia de Factor de Riesgo Conductual , Programas Gente Sana , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
ABSTRACT: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) commissioned a Workgroup to develop quality measures for the care of patients with narcolepsy. Following a comprehensive literature search, 306 publications were found addressing quality care or measures. Strength of association was graded between proposed process measures and desired outcomes. Following the AASM process for quality measure development, we identified three outcomes (including one outcome measure) and seven process measures. The first desired outcome was to reduce excessive daytime sleepiness by employing two process measures: quantifying sleepiness and initiating treatment. The second outcome was to improve the accuracy of diagnosis by employing the two process measures: completing both a comprehensive sleep history and an objective sleep assessment. The third outcome was to reduce adverse events through three steps: ensuring treatment follow-up, documenting medical comorbidities, and documenting safety measures counseling. All narcolepsy measures described in this report were developed by the Narcolepsy Quality Measures Work-group and approved by the AASM Quality Measures Task Force and the AASM Board of Directors. The AASM recommends the use of these measures as part of quality improvement programs that will enhance the ability to improve care for patients with narcolepsy.