ObjectiveTo synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers’ perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults.DesignA qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings.SettingAll healthcare settings.ParticipantsMedical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults.OutcomesPrescribers’ perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults.Results21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians’ perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported.ConclusionsA multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers’ behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.

Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is an increasingly common neurological disease process. Despite the wide prevalence of cSDH, there remains a lack of consensus regarding numerous aspects of its clinical management. We provide an overview of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of cSDH and discuss several controversial management issues, including the timing of post-operative resumption of anticoagulant medications, the effectiveness of anti-epileptic prophylaxis, protocols for mobilization following evacuation of cSDH, as well as the comparative effectiveness of the various techniques of surgical evacuation. A PubMed search was carried out through October 19, 2010 using the following keywords: "subdural hematoma", "craniotomy", "burr-hole", "management", "anticoagulation", "seizure prophylaxis", "antiplatelet", "mobilization", and "surgical evacuation", alone and in combination. Relevant articles were identified and back-referenced to yield additional papers. A meta-analysis was then performed comparing the efficacy and complications associated with the various methods of cSDH evacuation. There is general agreement that significant coagulopathy should be reversed expeditiously in patients presenting with cSDH. Although protocols for gradual resumption of anti-coagulation for prophylaxis of venous thrombosis may be derived from guidelines for other neurosurgical procedures, further prospective study is necessary to determine the optimal time to restart full-dose anti-coagulation in the setting of recently drained cSDH. There is also conflicting evidence to support seizure prophylaxis in patients with cSDH, although the existing literature supports prophylaxis in patients who are at a higher risk for seizures. The published data regarding surgical technique for cSDH supports primary twist drill craniostomy (TDC) drainage at the bedside for patients who are high-risk surgical candidates with non-septated cSDH and craniotomy as a first-line evacuation technique for cSDH with significant membranes. Larger prospective studies addressing these aspects of cSDH management are necessary to establish definitive recommendations.

The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS), created originally by American psychologist John Flanagan in the 1970's, has been adapted for use in chronic illness groups. This paper reviews the development and psychometric testing of the QOLS. A descriptive review of the published literature was undertaken and findings summarized in the frequently asked questions format. Reliability, content and construct validity testing has been performed on the QOLS and a number of translations have been made. The QOLS has low to moderate correlations with physical health status and disease measures. However, content validity analysis indicates that the instrument measures domains that diverse patient groups with chronic illness define as quality of life. The QOLS is a valid instrument for measuring quality of life across patient groups and cultures and is conceptually distinct from health status or other causal indicators of quality of life. Why assess Quality of Life in chronic illness?Quality of life (QOL) measures have become a vital and often required part of health outcomes appraisal. For populations with chronic disease, measurement of QOL provides a meaningful way to determine the impact of health care when cure is not possible. Over the past 20 years, hundreds of instruments have been developed that purport to measure QOL [1]. With few exceptions, these instruments measure what Fayers and colleagues [2,3] have called causal indicators of QOL rather than QOL itself. Health care professionals need to be clear about the conceptual definition of QOL and not to confound it with functional status, symptoms, disease processes, or treatment side-effects [4][5][6][7]. Although the definition of QOL is still evolving, Revicki and colleagues define QOL as "a broad range of human experiences related to one's overall well-being. It implies value based on subjective functioning in comparison with personal expectations and is defined by subjective experiences, states and perceptions. Quality of life, by its very natures, is idiosyncratic to the individual, but intuitively meaningful and understandable to most people [[8], p. 888]." This definition denotes a meaning for QOL that transcends health.

The use of multiple medicines, known as polypharmacy, poses a risk of harm that is greatest in older adults with multimorbidity. Deprescribing aims to improve health outcomes through ceasing medicines that are no longer necessary or appropriate due to changing clinical circumstances and patient priorities. General practitioners (GPs) and consultant pharmacists (CPs) are well positioned to facilitate deprescribing in primary care in partnership with older adults who present with inappropriate polypharmacy. In this article, we explore GPs' and CPs' views about inappropriate polypharmacy, the reasoning they apply to deprescribing in primary care, and identify factors that support or inhibit this process. Using focus group methodology and the Framework Method for thematic analysis, two major themes were discerned from the data-working through uncertainty and risk perception as a frame of reference. The findings provide important insights when devising methods for advancing and supporting deprescribing in primary care.

If health care providers are to be able to document effective outcomes resulting from their interventions, they must first develop clear conceptual definitions for the outcomes, and then select measures that represent these concepts. No consensus exists in the health care disciplines about what quality of life is or how it should be measured. This paper presents historical and conceptual arguments in favour of a particular definition of quality of life, and distinguishes between quality of life and concepts often confused with it in the literature: symptoms, mood, functional status, and general health status. Whether quality of life is actually amenable to change as a result of health care interventions, and whether we ought to be trying to influence clients' quality of life is also discussed. We conclude that quality of life is an important outcome of health care intervention. However, traditional approaches to influencing quality of life may be misdirected, and the relative importance of our interventions to clients--whose opinions matter the most--ought to be put into perspective.

No abstract

Objective Adolescents with Anorexia Nervosa (AN), treated with family-based treatment (FBT) who fail to gain 2.3 kg by the fourth week of treatment have a 40–50% lower chance of recovery than those who do. Because of the high risk of developing enduring AN, improving outcomes in this group of poor responders is essential. This study examines the feasibility and effects of a novel adaptive treatment (i.e., Intensive Parental Coaching-IPC) aimed at enhancing parental self-efficacy related to re-feeding skills in poor early responders to FBT. Method 45 adolescents (12 – 18 years of age) meeting DSM TR IV criteria for AN were randomized in an unbalanced design (10 to standard FBT; 35 to the adaptive arm). Attrition, suitability, expectancy rates, weight change, and psychopathology were compared between groups. Outcomes There were no differences in rates of attrition, suitability, expectancy ratings, or most clinical outcomes between randomized groups. However, the group of poor early responders that received IPC achieved full weight restoration (>95% of expected mean BMI) by EOT at similar rates as those who had responded early. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that it is feasible to use an adaptive design to study the treatment effect of IPC for those who do not gain adequate weight by session 4 of FBT. The results also suggest that using IPC for poor early responders significantly improves weight recovery rates to levels comparable to those who respond early. A sufficiently powered study is needed to confirm these promising findings.

Objective: The coronavirus pandemic has led to a dramatically different way of working for many therapists working with eating disorders, where telehealth has suddenly become the norm. However, many clinicians feel ill equipped to deliver therapy via telehealth, while adhering to evidence-based interventions. This article draws together clinician experiences of the issues that should be attended to, and how to address them within a telehealth framework.Method: Seventy clinical colleagues of the authors were emailed and invited to share their concerns online about how to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy for eating disorders (CBT-ED) via telehealth, and how to adapt clinical practice to deal with the problems that they and others had encountered. After 96 hr, all the suggestions that had been shared by 22 clinicians were collated to provide timely advice for other clinicians.Results: A range of themes emerged from the online discussion. A large proportion were general clinical and practical domains (patient and therapist concerns about telehealth; technical issues in implementing telehealth; changes in the environment), but there were also specific considerations and clinical recommendations about the delivery of CBT-ED methods.Discussion: Through interaction and sharing of ideas, clinicians across the world produced a substantial number of recommendations about how to use telehealth to work with people with eating disorders while remaining on track with evidencebased practice. These are shared to assist clinicians over the period of changed practice.