ActionAdobe Reader version 9 Adobe Reader version X and XI Insert textClick the 'Text Edits' button on the Commenting tool bar. Click to set the cursor location in the text and simply start typing. The text will appear in a commenting box. You may also cut-and-paste text from another file into the commenting box. Close the box by clicking on 'x' in the top right-hand corner.Click the 'Insert Text' icon on the Comment tool bar. Click to set the cursor location in the text and simply start typing. The text will appear in a commenting box. You may also cut-and-paste text from another file into the commenting box. Close the box by clicking on '_' in the top right-hand corner. Replace text Replace textClick the 'Text Edits' button on the Commenting tool bar. To highlight the text to be replaced, click and drag the cursor over the text. Then simply type in the replacement text. The replacement text will appear in a commenting box. You may also cut-and-paste text from another file into this box. To replace formatted text (an equation for example) please Attach a file (see below).Click the 'Replace (Ins)' icon on the Comment tool bar. To highlight the text to be replaced, click and drag the cursor over the text. Then simply type in the replacement text. The replacement text will appear in a commenting box. You may also cut-and-paste text from another file into this box. To replace formatted text (an equation for example) please Attach a file (see below). Remove textClick the 'Text Edits' button on the Commenting tool bar. Click and drag over the text to be deleted. Then press the delete button on your keyboard. The text to be deleted will then be struck through.Click the 'Strikethrough (Del)' icon on the Comment tool bar. Click and drag over the text to be deleted. Then press the delete button on your keyboard. The text to be deleted will then be struck through. Highlight text/ make a commentClick on the 'Highlight' button on the Commenting tool bar. Click and drag over the text. To make a comment, double click on the highlighted text and simply start typing.Click on the 'Highlight Text' icon on the Comment tool bar. Click and drag over the text. To make a comment, double click on the highlighted text and simply start typing. Attach a fileClick on the 'Attach a File' button on the Commenting tool bar. Click on the figure, table or formatted text to be replaced. A window will automatically open allowing you to attach the file. To make a comment, go to 'General' in the 'Properties' window, and then 'Description'. A graphic will appear in the PDF file indicating the insertion of a file.Click on the 'Attach File' icon on the Comment tool bar. Click on the figure, table or formatted text to be replaced. A window will automatically open allowing you to attach the file. A graphic will appear indicating the insertion of a file. Leave a note/ commentClick on the 'Note Tool' button on the Commenting tool bar. Click to set the location of the note on the document and simply start typing. Do not use this feature to make text edits.C...
BackgroundLength of stay in psychiatric hospitals interests health service planners, economists and clinicians. At a systems level it is preferable to study general adult and forensic psychiatric beds together since these are likely to be inter-dependent. We examined whether patients were placed according to specialist need or according to their cross-sectional length of stay.MethodsA one night census of all registered mental nursing home (RMNH) beds was carried out for a defined catchment area of 1.2 m population in north London in November 1999. This included all public sector psychiatric hospital beds, independent sector and forensic beds in and outside the catchment area. Cross-sectional length of stay was defined as time since the date of admission from the community. Log rank (Mantel-Cox) Chi squared was used to test for differences between groups and hierarchical logistic regression for statistical modelling.ResultsThere were 1,085 occupied psychiatric beds. Cross-sectional LOS was greater than 365 days in 43.5%. Forensic beds had longer cross-sectional LOS than general beds. LOS increased with the level of therapeutic security from open through low, medium and high secure. Cross-sectional LOS was shorter for open hospital beds than community RMNH beds, shorter for informal patients than those detained under civil mental health law, and longest for forensic detentions. Longest cross-sectional LOS were for patients placed in RMNHs in the community, 10.7% of whom were ‘forensic’ as were 25.4% of low secure patients. Designated length of stay (acute, rehab/medium term and long term) was also associated with increasing cross-sectional LOS. In regression analysis only three variables contributed to a model of cross-sectional LOS, commissioning status (general or forensic), designated length of stay and designated level of therapeutic security.ConclusionsStudying cross-sectional LOS for whole systems (all psychiatric beds) is essential for operational health service management. At the time of this survey ‘forensic’ status was the main way of accessing long term high dependency places. This has been an organic development over time, a response to patient needs rather than the outcome of any specific policy or plan.
Background: This study aims to compare the outcomes of COVID-19-positive disease in patients with a history of cancer to those without. Methods: We retrospectively collected clinical data and outcomes of COVID-19 positive cancer patients treated consecutively in five North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included time interval between most recent anti-cancer treatment and admission, severe outcome [a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ITU) admission, ventilation and/or death] and mortality. Outcomes were compared with consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (1 March–30 April 2020). Patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity. Results: The median age in both cohorts was 74 years, with 67% male, and comprised of 30 patients with cancer, and 90 without (1:3 ratio). For cohort B, 579 patients without a history of cancer and consecutively admitted were screened from the primary London hospital, 105 were COVID-19 positive and 90 were matched and included. Excluding cancer, both cohorts had a median of two comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality, comparing patients with cancer to those without, was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4–2.5], and severe outcome (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.4–2.0) suggesting no increased risk of death or a severe outcome in patients with cancer. Cancer patients who received systemic treatment within 28 days had an OR for mortality of 4.05 (95% CI 0.68–23.95), p = 0.12. On presentation anaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia were identified predominantly in cohort A. Median duration of admission was 8 days for cancer patients and 7 days for non-cancer. Conclusion: A diagnosis of cancer does not appear to increase the risk of death or a severe outcome in COVID-19 patients with cancer compared with those without cancer. If a second spike of virus strikes, rational decision making is required to ensure optimal cancer care.
Background Four months after the first known case of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), on the 11th March 2020, the WHO declared the outbreak a pandemic and acknowledged the potential to overwhelm national healthcare systems. The high prevalence and associated healthcare, social and economic challenges of COVID-19 suggest this pandemic is likely to have a major impact on cancer management, and has been shown to potentially have worse outcomes in this cohort of vulnerable patients (1). This study aims to compare the outcomes of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 positive disease in patients with or without a history of cancer. Method: We retrospectively collected clinical, pathological and radiological characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 RT-PCR positive cancer patients treated consecutively in four different North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. All clinically relevant outcomes were then compared to consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (12th March- 7th April 2020). Results: A total of 52 electronic patient records during the study time period were reviewed. Cohort A (median age 76 years, 56% males) and cohort B (median age 58 years, 62% male) comprised of 26 patients each. With the exclusion of cancer, both had a median of 2 comorbidities. Within cohort A, the most frequent underlying cancer was colorectal (5/26) and prostate cancer (5/26), and 77% of patients in Cohort A had received previous anti-cancer therapy. The most common presenting symptoms were cough and pyrexia in both cohorts. Frequent laboratory findings included lymphopenia, anaemia and elevated CRP in both cohorts, whilst hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia was predominantly seen amongst patients with cancer. Median duration of admission was 7 days in both cohorts. The mortality rate was the same in both cohorts (23%), with median age of mortality of 80 years. Of cancer patients who died, all were advanced stage, had been treated with palliative intent and had received anti-cancer therapy within 13 days of admission. Conclusion: Old age, late stage of cancer diagnosis and multiple co-morbidities adversely influence the outcome of patients with COVID-19 positive patients. Whilst extra caution is warranted in the administration of anti-cancer therapies pertaining to the risk of immune-suppression, this data does not demonstrate a higher risk to cancer patients compared to their non-cancer counterparts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.