The Family Evaluation of Hospice Care (FEHC) survey is a 61-item questionnaire that surveys family members about care provided to the decedent by the hospice. Hospices submit their data to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), where results are tabulated. For the first two quarters of 2004, a total of 29,292 surveys were tabulated. On average, respondents rated their overall satisfaction with care as 47.1 on a 50-point composite scale of five measures of satisfaction. Opportunities for improvement were identified for attending to family needs for support (18.2% of those surveyed reported at least one unmet need), attending to family needs for communication (10-29%), and coordination of care (22.1%). Surrogate reporting of unmet needs for pain, dyspnea, or emotional support ranged from 5.3% to 9.8%. The FEHC is a useful tool for measuring hospice performance and identifies a number of opportunities for improvement.

Changes in ground reaction forces that result from different breast support conditions may have implications for sports performance and transmission of forces through the skeleton. The aim of this investigation was to compare kinetic variables and breast motion in a no-bra, everyday-bra and two sports-bra conditions. Following ethical approval, eight female participants with D-cup breasts had retro-reflective markers placed on the left and right nipples, anterior superior iliac spines and clavicles. Five calibrated ProReflex infra-red cameras (100 Hz; Qualisys) measured 3-D displacement of markers and synchronised kinetic data were collected using a force platform (500 Hz, Kistler 9281CA). A repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed a significantly higher medial impact force in the no-bra condition (0.15 times body weight) compared with the compression sports-bra condition (0.12 times body weight) (F = 3.64 (3,21), p = 0.03). Findings suggest that inadequate breast support affects a female's running kinetics, which may have negative physiological consequences on sports performance.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to compare measures of power output applied to the center of mass of the barbell and body system (CM) obtained by multiplying ground reaction force (GRF) by (a) the velocity of the barbell; (b) the velocity of the CM derived from three-dimensional (3D) whole-body motion analysis, and (c) the velocity of the CM derived from GRF during lower-body resistance exercise. Ten resistance-trained men performed 3 maximal-effort single back squats with 60% 1 repetition maximum while GRF and whole-body motion were captured using synchronized Kistler force platforms and a Vicon Motus motion analysis system. Repeated measures analysis of variance of time-normalized kinematic and kinetic data obtained using the different methods showed that the barbell was displaced 13.4% (p < 0.05) more than the CM, the velocity of the barbell was 16.1% (p < 0.05) greater than the velocity of the CM, and power applied to the CM obtained by multiplying GRF by the velocity of the barbell was 18.7% (p < 0.05) greater than power applied to the CM obtained by multiplying the force applied to the CM by its resultant velocity. Further, the velocity of the barbell was significantly greater than the velocity of the trunk, upper leg, lower leg, and foot (p < 0.05), indicating that a failure to consider the kinematics of body segments during lower-body resistance exercise can lead to a significant overestimation of power applied to the CM. Strength and conditioning coaches and investigators are urged to obtain measures of power from the force applied to and the velocity of either the barbell (using inverse dynamics) or CM (GRF or 3D motion analysis). Failure to apply these suggestions could result in continued overestimation of CM power, compromising methodological integrity.