Shared medical appointments for patients with a nondiabetic physical chronic illness: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Shared medical appointments are group appointments, with an optional individual consultation, for patients diagnosed with chronic illnesses. Shared medical appointments improve diabetes management, but little is known about their use for other illnesses. The objective was to determine the effect that shared medical appointments have on patients with a physical chronic illness, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted searching databases from January 1970 to September 2016. Eligible trials evaluated shared medical appointments for patients with a homogeneous chronic illness, excluding diabetes and mental illness. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias were conducted independently by two authors. Analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: Of 2364 citations, nine randomized trials were included. Shared medical appointments were evaluated for cardiovascular illnesses (four studies), breast cancer, chronic kidney disease, Parkinson's disease, stress urinary incontinence, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Compared to usual care, no negative effects on patient quality of life, knowledge and satisfaction were reported. One study reported no difference in healthcare provider satisfaction. Another study showed fewer hospital admissions for patients who attended shared medical appointments. DISCUSSION: Few rigorous studies evaluated the use of shared medical appointments for chronic illnesses. Overall, there appears to be no patient harms. Further studies should include more objective outcomes and larger sample sizes.

Evaluation of mericon E. coli O157 Screen Plus and mericon E. coli STEC O-Type Pathogen Detection Assays in Select Foods: Collaborative Study, First Action 2017.05.

QIAGEN mericon Escherichia coli O157 Screen Plus and mericon E. coli Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O-Type Pathogen Detection Assays use Real-Time PCR technology for the rapid, accurate detection of E. coli O157 and the "big six" (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145) (non-O157 STEC) in select food types. Using a paired study design, the assays were compared with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook Chapter 5.09 reference method for the detection of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. Both mericon assays were evaluated using the manual and an automated DNA extraction method. Thirteen technicians from five laboratories located within the continental United States participated in the collaborative study. Three levels of contamination were evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted according to the probability of detection (POD) statistical model. Results obtained for the low-inoculum level test portions produced a difference between laboratories POD (dLPOD) value with a 95% confidence interval of 0.00 (-0.12, 0.12) for the mericon E. coli O157 Screen Plus with manual and automated extraction and mericon E. coli STEC O-Type with manual extraction and -0.01 (-0.13, 0.10) for the mericon E. coli STEC O-Type with automated extraction. The dLPOD results indicate equivalence between the candidate methods and the reference method.

Wellness Beyond Cancer Program: building an effective survivorship program.

BACKGROUND: The Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (wbcp) was launched in 2012, first accepting patients with colorectal cancer (crc) and, subsequently, those with breast cancer (bca), with the aim of standardizing and streamlining the discharge process from our cancer centre. Patients are discharged either to the wbcp nurse practitioner or to their primary care provider (pcp). The program incorporates survivorship care plans (scps) and education classes; it also has a rapid re-entry system in case of recurrence. The objective of this paper is to describe the process by which a cancer survivorship program was developed at our institution and to present preliminary evaluation results. METHODS: Qualitative surveys were mailed to patients and pcps 1 year after patients had been referred to the wbcp. The surveys addressed knowledge of the program content, satisfaction on the part of patients and providers, and whether scp recommendations were followed. Questions were scored on the level of agreement with each of a list of statements (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS: From March 2012 to November 2014, 2630 patients were referred to the wbcp (809 with crc, 1821 with bca). Surveys were received from 289 patients and 412 pcps. Patients and pcps gave similar scores (average: 4) to statements about satisfaction; pcps gave scores below 4 to statements about communication with the wbcp. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after discharge, patients and pcps were satisfied with program content, but there is an opportunity to improve on communication and provision of cancer-specific information to the pcps. Using the wbcp to ensure a safe transition to the most appropriate health care provider, we have standardized the discharge process for crc and bca patients.