Inflammation may be defined as the normal response of living tissue to injury or infection. It is important to emphasize two components of this definition. First, that inflammation is a normal response and, as such, is expected to occur when tissue is damaged. Indeed, if injured tissue did not exhibit signs of inflammation this would be considered abnormal. Secondly, inflammation occurs in living tissue, hence the need for an adequate blood supply to the tissues in order for an inflammatory response to be exhibited. The inflammatory response may be triggered by mechanical injury, chemical toxins, invasion by microorganisms, and hypersensitivity reactions. Three major events occur during the inflammatory response: the blood supply to the affected area is increased substantially, capillary permeability is increased, and leucocytes migrate from the capillary vessels into the surrounding interstitial spaces to the site of inflammation or injury. The inflammatory response represents a complex biological and biochemical process involving cells of the immune system and a plethora of biological mediators. Cell-to-cell communication molecules known collectively as cytokines play an extremely important role in mediating the process of inflammation. An extensive exposition of this complex phenomenon is beyond the scope of this article. Rather, the author provides a review of inflammation, an overview of the role of certain biological mediators in inflammation, and a discussion of the implications of certain biological response modifiers in clinical practice.

Web-based learning can be an effective mode of delivery for nursing education. Advance preparation by educational institutions, employers and prospective students is essential. Teachers, peers, technology, course design and the learning environment are key variables that influence the learners' experience and success.

BackgroundParamedics work in a highly complex and unpredictable environment which is characterized by ongoing decision-making. Decisions made by paramedics in the prehospital setting have implications for patient safety, transport, treatment, and health resource utilization. The objective of this study was; a) to understand how paramedics conduct decision-making in the field, and b) to develop a grounded theory of paramedic decision-making in the prehospital setting.MethodThis study was conducted using classical grounded theory. Paramedics (n = 13) with five or more years’ experience, who worked in a large urban center in Western Canada were interviewed. Field observations were conducted, each lasting 12 h, with five different ambulance crews. The data were analyzed and coded using the constant comparative method.ResultsThe resultant theory, Creative Adapting in a Fluid Environment, indicates paramedic decision-making is a fluid iterative process. Unpredictable and dynamic features of the prehospital environment require paramedics to use a flexible and creative approach to decision-making. The model consists of the three categories constructing a malleable model, revising the model, and situation-specific action. Two additional components, safety and extrication, are considered at each stage of the call. These two components in conjunction with the three categories influence how decisions are made and enacted.ConclusionParamedic decision-making is highly contextual and requires accurate interpretation and flexible cognitive constructs that are rapidly adaptable. Evaluation of paramedic decision-making needs to account for the complex and dynamic interaction between the environment, patient characteristics, available resources, and provider experience and knowledge.

Anaemia is associated with a reduction in quality of life, and is common in patients with colorectal cancer . We recently reported the findings of the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trial comparing haemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements following intravenous or oral iron replacement in anaemic colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. In this follow-up study, we compared the efficacy of intravenous and oral iron at improving quality of life in this patient group. We conducted a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Anaemic colorectal cancer patients were randomly allocated at least two weeks pre-operatively, to receive either oral (ferrous sulphate) or intravenous (ferric carboxymaltose) iron. We assessed haemoglobin and quality of life scores at recruitment, immediately before surgery and at outpatient review approximately three months postoperatively, using the Short Form 36, EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -Anaemia questionnaires. We recruited 116 anaemic patients across seven UK centres (oral iron n = 61 (53%), and intravenous iron n = 55 (47%)). Eleven quality of life components increased by a clinically significant margin in the intravenous iron group between recruitment and surgery compared with one component for oral iron. Median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scores were significantly higher with intravenous iron at a three month outpatient review (oral iron 70, (60-85 [20-95]); intravenous iron 90 (80-90 [50-100]), p = 0.001). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -Anaemia score comprises of subscales related to cancer, fatigue and non-fatigue items relevant to anaemia. Median outpatient scores were higher, and hence favourable, for intravenous iron on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -Anaemia subscale (oral iron 66 (55-72 [23-80]); intravenous iron 71 (66-77 [46-80]); p = 0.002), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -Anaemia trial outcome index (oral iron 108 (90-123 [35-135]); intravenous iron 121 (113-124 [81-135]); p = 0.003) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -Anaemia total score (oral iron 151 (132-170 [69-183]); intravenous iron 168 (160-174 [125-186]); p = 0.005). These findings indicate that intravenous iron is more efficacious at improving quality of life scores than oral iron in anaemic colorectal cancer patients.

No abstract

NLC for patients with RA is effective, acceptable, and safe as compared with other models. However, current evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about its efficiency, accessibility, and appropriateness.

No abstract

Objective. Timely access to rheumatology consultation is fundamental to appropriate and effective management of patients with musculoskeletal and autoimmune diseases. Yet, for a variety of reasons, limited and delayed access is commonplace. Moreover, information exchange for referral is often inadequate or poorly communicated. The objective of this work was to improve referral from primary care to rheumatology by formulating and testing a clinically coherent, reliable, and non-diagnosis-dependent Priority Referral Score (PRS). Methods. Using a deliberative process, a clinical panel of 10 primary care providers (PCPs) and rheumatology specialists reviewed clinical case scenarios and engaged in a highly iterative process to develop criteria, definitions, and weights for the PRS, a linear 100-point scale to rate the relative urgency of referral. Following tool formulation, clinicians uninvolved with the process tested the PRS against their clinical judgment. Results. The PRS comprises 8 criteria, with 2-4 levels for each criterion, and each having a weight generated through conjoint analysis, which forced choices around the comparative urgency of all of the criteria and levels. The PRS showed a strong correlation between clinical rankings of rheumatologists and PCPs in both the deliberative panel, and the physicians subsequently involved in the testing of the PRS. Conclusion. No standardized priority-setting criteria are available for the full range of primary care referrals to rheumatologists. The PRS had face value with panelists and provided acceptable interrater and intrarater reliability when tested with other rheumatologists and PCPs. Pilot testing with other clinicians and in other settings is justified and prerequisite to use in clinical practice.