No abstract

BackgroundSelf-management support is a key component of effective chronic care management, yet in practice appears to be the least implemented and most challenging. This study explores whether and how self-management support is integrated into chronic care approaches in 13 European countries. In addition, it investigates the level of and barriers to implementation of support strategies in health care practice.MethodsWe conducted a review among the 13 participating countries, based on a common data template informed by the Chronic Care Model. Key informants presented a sample of representative chronic care approaches and related self-management support strategies. The cross-country review was complemented by a Dutch case study of health professionals’ views on the implementation of self-management support in practice.ResultsSelf-management support for chronically ill patients remains relatively underdeveloped in Europe. Similarities between countries exist mostly in involved providers (nurses) and settings (primary care). Differences prevail in mode and format of support, and materials used. Support activities focus primarily on patients’ medical and behavioral management, and less on emotional management. According to Dutch providers, self-management support is not (yet) an integral part of daily practice; implementation is hampered by barriers related to, among others, funding, IT and medical culture.ConclusionsAlthough collaborative care for chronic conditions is becoming more important in European health systems, adequate self-management support for patients with chronic disease is far from accomplished in most countries. There is a need for better understanding of how we can encourage both patients and health care providers to engage in productive interactions in daily chronic care practice, which can improve health and social outcomes.

BackgroundAlthough severe sepsis constitutes an important burden for healthcare systems, there is limited nationwide data on its epidemiology in European countries. Our objective was to examine the most recent epidemiological characteristics and trends of severe sepsis in Spain, from a population perspective.MethodsAnalysis of the 2006-2011 National Hospital Discharge Registry. Cases were identified by combining specific ICD-9CM codes. We estimated demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes and calculated age- and sex- adjusted estimations of incidence and mortality rates. Trends were assessed in terms of annual percent change (APC) in rates using joinpoint regression analysis.ResultsOver the 6-year period we identified 240939 cases of severe sepsis nationwide representing 1.1% of all hospitalisations and 54% of hospitalisations with sepsis. Incidence was 87 cases per 100,000 population. Overall 58% of cases were men, 66% were over the age of 65 and about 67% had associated comorbidities. Bacteremia was coded in 16% of records. Almost 54% of cases had one organ dysfunction, 26% two and around 20% three or more dysfunctions. In-hospital case-fatality was 43% and associated with age, gender, comorbidities and organ dysfunctions, among others. We found significant demographic and clinical changes over time with an increase in the mean age of cases, comorbidities, number of organ dysfunctions and in the number of cases with gram-negative pathogens. Furthermore, even with gender disparities, standardised incidence and mortality rates increased with an overall APC of 8.6% (95% CI 5.1, 12.1) and 6% (95% CI 1.9, 10.3), respectively. Conversely, we detect a significant decrease in case-fatality rates with an overall APC of -3.24% (95% CI: -4.2, -2.2).ConclusionsThis nationwide population-based study shows that hospitalizations with severe sepsis are frequent and associated with substantial in-hospital mortality in Spain. Furthermore it indicates that the incidence and mortality rates of severe sepsis have notably increased in recent years, showing also a significant increase in the age and severity of the affected population. Despite this, there has been a significant decreasing trend in case-fatality rates over time. This information has significant implications for health-care system planning and may prove useful to estimate future care requirements.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0717-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPercutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has gained popularity in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its role versus other conventional minimally invasive therapies is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this work is to analyse the efficacy and safety of RFA versus that of ethanol injection (PEI), the percutaneous standard approach to treat nonsurgical HCC.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials published up to August 2008 in PubMed, ISI Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Overall survival, local recurrence rate and adverse effects were considered as primary outcomes. Studies were critically appraised and estimates of effect were calculated according to the random-effects model. Inconsistency across studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore statistical heterogeneity.ResultsSix studies were eligible. The studies reported data on 396 patients treated by RFA and 391 treated by PEI. In general, subjects were in Child-Pugh class A (74%) and had unresectable HCC (mean size 2.5 cm). Mean follow-up was 25 ± 11 months. The survival rate showed a significant benefit for RFA over PEI at one, two, three and four years. The advantage in survival increased with time with Relative Risk values of: 1.28 (95%CI:1.12–1.45) and 1.24 (95%CI:1.05–1.48) for RFA versus PEI at 3- and 4-years respectively. Likewise, RFA achieved significantly lower rates of local recurrence (RR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.23–0.59). The overall rate of adverse events was higher with RFA (RR:2.55, 95%CI: 1.8–3.6) yet no significant differences were found concerning major complications (RR:1.85, 95%CI: 0.68–5.01). There was not enough evidence supporting a better cost-effectiveness ratio for RFA compared to PEI.ConclusionAvailable evidence from adequate quality controlled studies support the superiority of RFA versus PEI, in terms of better survival and local control of the disease, for the treatment of patients with relatively preserved liver function and early-stage non-surgical HCC. However, the higher rate of adverse events displayed is something that will have to be tested with appropriate weighting of the possible benefits in each individual case. Overall cost-effectiveness of RFA needs further evaluation.