The purpose of this study is to determine the association between school-based fitness testing awards and meeting physical activity guidelines among children with disabilities.
Cross-sectional secondary data analysis using NHANES 2013-2016.
Data from NHANES 2013-2016 were used.
3915 children without disabilities and 647 children with disabilities between ages of 5 to 15 years.
Self-reported from children or proxy response from guardians in above parameters.
Chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression.
There is no significant different between children with and without disabilities in receiving school-based fitness testing awards (×2 = 4.14, p = .05). According to both crude and adjusted model, children with disabilities are more likely to received school-based fitness testing awards than children without disabilities (OR = 1.44, 95% C.I. [.98, 2.12]; OR = 1.27, 95% C.I. [.85, 1.89]). Also, for children with disabilities, children who did not received school-based fitness testing awards are more likely to meet PA guidelines than children who received school-based fitness testing awards according to both crude and adjusted models (OR = 1.71, 95% C.I. [.66, 4.47]; OR = 1.37, 95% C.I. [.59, 3.16]).
Receiving school-based fitness testing could potentially increase self-efficacy in engaging in physical activity among children with disabilities. However, there is a need to determine if the current approach of utilizing awards are sufficient enough to promote physical activity among children with disabilities.

Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for ≥85% compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, ≤1 minute; time to defibrillation, ≤2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71% [64%-77%] versus 66% [59%-74%]; Spearman ρ, 0.19; P=0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25% [interquartile range, 22%-30%]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24% [interquartile range, 12%-27%]; Spearman ρ, 0.13; P=0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4% (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals\' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ρ, 0.16; P=0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.

Opioid prescription management is challenging for orthopaedic surgeons, and we lack evidence-based guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing. Our institution recently developed opioid prescription guidelines for patients undergoing several common orthopaedic procedures including TKA and THA in an effort to reduce and standardize prescribing patterns.
(1) How do opioid prescriptions at discharge and 30-day refill rates change in opioid-naïve patients undergoing primary TKA and THA before and after implementation of a novel prescribing guideline strategy? (2) What patient, surgical, and in-hospital factors influence opioid prescription quantity and refill rate?
New institutional guidelines for patients undergoing TKA and THA recommend a maximum postoperative prescription of 400 oral morphine equivalents (OME), comparable to 50 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone or 80 tablets of 50 mg tramadol. All opioid-naïve patients, defined as those who did not take any opioids within 90 days preceding surgery, undergoing primary TKA and THA at a single tertiary care institution were evaluated from program initiation on August 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, as the postguideline era cohort. This group (n = 751 patients) was compared with all opioid-naïve patients undergoing TKA and THA from 2016 at the same institution (n = 1822 patients). Some providers were early adopters of the guidelines as they were being developed, which is why January to July 2017 was not evaluated. Patients in the preguideline and postguideline eras were not different in terms of age, sex, race, body mass index, education level, employment status, psychiatric illness, marital status, smoking history, outpatient use of benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids, or diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, or cancer. The primary outcome assessed was adherence to the new guidelines with a secondary outcome of opioid medication refills ordered within 30 days from any provider. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed with outcomes of guideline compliance and refills and adjusted for demographic, surgical, and patient care factors. Patients were followed for 30 days after surgery and no patients were lost to followup.
Median opioid prescription and range of prescriptions decreased in the postguideline era compared with the preguideline era (750 OME, interquartile range [IQR] 575-900 OME versus 388 OME, IQR 350-389; difference of medians = 362 OME; p < 0.001). There was no difference among patients undergoing TKA before and after guideline implementation in terms of the 30-day refill rate (35% [349 of 1011] versus 35% [141 of 399]; p = 0.77); this relationship was similar among patient undergoing THA (16% [129 of 811] versus 17% [61 of 352]; p = 0.55). After controlling for relevant patient-level factors, we found that implementation of an institutional guideline was the strongest factor associated with a prescription of ≤ 400 OME (adjusted odds ratio, 36; 95% confidence interval, 25-52; p < 0.001); although a number of patient-level factors also were associated with prescription quantity, the effect sizes were much smaller.
This study provides a proof of concept that institutional guidelines to reduce postoperative opioid prescribing can improve aftercare in patients undergoing arthroplasty in a short period of time. The current report evaluates our experience with the first 5 months of this program; therefore, longer term data will be mandatory to determine longitudinal guideline adherence and whether the cutoffs established by this pilot initiative require further refinement for individual procedures.
Level II, therapeutic study.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

METHODS: Delphi.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain an expert consensus on which history factors are most important in the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
BACKGROUND: LSS is a poorly defined clinical syndrome. Criteria for defining LSS are needed and should be informed by the experience of expert clinicians.
METHODS: Phase 1 (Delphi Items): 20 members of the International Taskforce on the Diagnosis and Management of LSS confirmed a list of 14 history items. An online survey was developed that permits specialists to express the logical order in which they consider the items, and the level of certainty ascertained from the questions. Phase 2 (Delphi Study) Round 1: Survey distributed to members of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine. Round 2: Meeting of 9 members of Taskforce where consensus was reached on a final list of 10 items. Round 3: Final survey was distributed internationally. Phase 3: Final Taskforce consensus meeting.
RESULTS: A total of 279 clinicians from 29 different countries, with a mean of 19 (±SD: 12) years in practice participated. The six top items were \"leg or buttock pain while walking,\" \"flex forward to relieve symptoms,\" \"feel relief when using a shopping cart or bicycle,\" \"motor or sensory disturbance while walking,\" \"normal and symmetric foot pulses,\" \"lower extremity weakness,\" and \"low back pain.\" Significant change in certainty ceased after six questions at 80% (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to reach an international consensus on the clinical diagnosis of LSS, and suggests that within six questions clinicians are 80% certain of diagnosis. We propose a consensus-based set of \"seven history items\" that can act as a pragmatic criterion for defining LSS in both clinical and research settings, which in the long term may lead to more cost-effective treatment, improved health care utilization, and enhanced patient outcomes.
METHODS: 2.

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group\'s proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。