By D. Jensgar. University of Evansville. 2018.
While we have a glut of information generic viagra vigour 800 mg on-line erectile dysfunction treatment sydney, we also have real ethical challenges facing us purchase viagra vigour 800 mg without a prescription erectile dysfunction virgin. The advances in genetic knowledge and potential alterations of genes through gene therapy have led to real caution because of highly visible adverse consequences to sub- jects of human studies. People are very concerned about the degree to which genetic information can be kept private and justiﬁably concerned that such information not fall into the hands of employers or insurers. The country will continue to be embroiled in deep disagreements about the use of human stem cells for research. The dramatic promise that they hold has come up against deep-seated religious beliefs of those who feel that embryos that are surplus and intended for discarding are indeed human life and ought not to be used for experimentation. These and other ethical issues will con- tinue to be important as science progresses. In their chapter, Greg Sachs and Harvey Cohen discuss the ethical issues in clinical research, including the ethics of research with Alzheimer’s disease, a paradigmatic dis- order where patients cannot fully make their own decisions and yet where research x Preface is very high stakes and needs to be offered to those suffering from the ravages of this disease. Ethical issues also continue to surround treatment decisions and, in par- ticular, those around expensive potential life-prolonging and intrusive measures for older individuals. The challenge—especially in the United States—is how to balance the promise of these disorders with the increasing inequities in our health care system, in particular in a situation where more and more people under the age of 65 have no health insurance at all. All of these issues will continue to intensely involve the public, and thus clinicians will need every possible resource to stay informed as citizens and to provide impor- tant answers for their communities and their patients. Along these lines, we have expanded this edition by 18 chapters, devoting an entire section to the emerging ﬁeld of palliative medicine and increasing our coverage on surgical issues, care manage- ment, and pharmacology. Health care providers will increasingly be called upon to practice what has come to be known as "evidence-based medicine. For this reason, it is more and more important that clinicians under- stand the evidence behind the use of any interventions, both diagnostic and therapeu- tic. The science of evaluating evidence is a statistical one, and the standards for doing so have been articulated by leaders in the ﬁeld. One of those leaders, Rosanne Leipzig, is deputy editor of this edition of Geriatric Medicine. She has looked at every single chapter through an evidence-based lens and, whenever possible, provided up-to-date information about the quality and strength of the evidence for the diagnostic and treat- ment recommendations included in each chapter. Leipzig has joined the Geriatric Medicine, 4/e, team and can give us this added dimen- sion of balance and rigor to the expertise of our world-class roster of authors. I also want to thank Harvey Cohen, Eric Larsen, and Diane Meier,Associate Editors, who have contributed enormously to the production of this book. Carol has now taken us through two editions of Geriatric Medicine, and we hope we can persuade her to work with us on the ﬁfth edition of Geriatric Medicine. Beizer Part II Changing Contexts of Care in Geriatric Medicine 9 Contexts of Care. Palmer Part III Clinical Approaches to the Geriatric Patient 14 Clinical Approach to the Older Patient: An Overview. Reuben 18 Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Systems Approaches to Geriatric Care. Liebers, and Harvey Jay Cohen Section B: Organ System Diseases and Disorders 39 Cardiovascular Disease. Niessen Contents xv Section C: Common Problems in Older Adults 62 Dietary Supplements for Geriatric Patients. Fried, Jonathan Darer, and Jeremy Walston Part VI Neurologic and Psychiatric Disorders 74 Dementia. Masdeu and María Cruz Rodriguez-Oroz xvi Contents 79 Depression, Anxiety, and Other Mood Disorders. Marin Part VII Ethics and Health Policy Issues for Older Adults 81 Mechanisms of Paying for Health Care. Albert, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry & Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA Angeles A. Alvarez, MD, Assistant Professor of Gynecology and Oncology, Division of Gynecology/Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA Sonia Ancoli-Israel, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Califor- nia, San Diego, San Diego, CA 92161, USA Sharon Anderson, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hyper- tension, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97201-2940, USA Jerry Avorn, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA Patricia P.
Of the providers who participated in focus groups during our site visits discount viagra vigour 800mg fast delivery impotence and diabetes 2, an average of 75 percent reported they received a copy of the guideline buy viagra vigour 800mg otc erectile dysfunction quality of life, with a range across the sites of 40 to 100 percent. The site with the lowest percentage reported that it had experienced high turnover in clinical staff during the demonstration. About two-thirds of the providers participating in our focus groups rated the training sessions to be "very to extremely useful. One site provided additional educa- tion for providers at two of its clinics by spending 20 minutes on the low back pain guideline within the context of a three-hour education session that focused primarily on the asthma and diabetes guide- lines. Another site, having experienced turnover of one-half of its staff during the demonstration, integrated an introduction to the low back pain guideline into its two-day orientation to the hospital for newcomers. None of the sites held formal training sessions for nurses, medics, PAs, or other ancillary staff involved in the treatment of low back pain patients. In most cases, these staff were simply instructed to ask patients to fill out their portion of form 695-R and, at some sites, to hand out a patient education pamphlet. Only about one-half of the ancillary staff that participated in our focus groups reported they had been introduced to the guideline. This omission contributed to reluctance by clinic staff at some sites to cooperate in using the guideline. To ensure use of conservative treat- ment for acute low back pain patients, all sites attempted to use the encounter form 695-R to support implementation of the guideline and ensure documentation of diagnosis and treatment. Compliance varied across the sites, however, depending on the support availabil- Implementation Actions by the Demonstration Sites 63 ity and frequency of rotation of ancillary staff, acceptance of the form by primary care providers, and aggressiveness of monitoring. Typically, a low back pain patient was identified at the sign-in desk or in the screening room. Clinic staff filled in the vital signs section and attached the form to the medical chart for the provider’s use. Com- pliance with this relatively simple procedure varied initially from 20 percent at some clinics to 92 percent at some TMCs, and most sites reported that compliance decreased over time. First, it was not clear to the sites whether MEDCOM mandated use of the form or gave the sites the discretion to decide whether and how to use it. MEDCOM clarified that the sites were expected to document the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain patients appropriately in the medical chart, but they could choose how to do that. The form 695-R was provided as a tool that would achieve appropriate documentation, but they were not required to use it. In response to this guidance, the sites tended to leave to the individual providers the decision about whether to use form 695-R. A second reason for low compliance in using form 695-R is that many providers were not satisfied with the contents of the form, and in particular, many complained that the form did not provide enough space to write notes. Overall, most physicians reported they used the form at the first visit (65 percent of providers in the focus groups), but only 20 percent used it at subsequent visits or for patients pre- senting with multiple problems. Providers felt that filling out the form at each return visit was duplicative and unnecessary. At one site, physicians had all but stopped using the form by the time of our last visit. Lack of standardization among providers within one clinic or TMC in use of the form made the processing of patients confusing for the ancillary staff. Third, many ancillary staff perceived that the documentation form added to an already heavy workload, and, hence, they were reluctant to use it. Ironically, about two-thirds of the ancillary staff that partic- ipated in our focus groups and had used the form reported that it shortened processing time (45 percent) or made no difference 64 Evaluation of the Low Back Pain Practice Guideline Implementation (22 percent). Some providers reported they did not insist the form be included with the patient’s chart because they knew the ancillary staff were overworked and they did not like placing new demands on them. The relatively high rotation of ancillary staff, particularly at TMCs, also contributed to low compliance with use of form 695-R. The sites did not act forcefully to maintain adequate levels of staff training regarding procedures for use of the form. Finally, some TMCs and clinics reported they ran out of forms and did not know how to replace them. MEDCOM did not set down procedures for ordering new supplies until later in the demonstration. This administrative barrier for providers and clinic staff discouraged use of the form yet further.
Establishing a baseline pattern of cardiac-related symptoms could include questions on: • frequency • intensity • duration • trigger factors buy viagra vigour 800 mg with mastercard injections for erectile dysfunction cost, e safe viagra vigour 800mg doctor who cures erectile dysfunction. Gathering all this information gives the CR exercise leader and CR team an initial indication of physical and psychological functioning, and of whether symptoms are likely to be a limiting factor. It also enables comparison of these factors pre- and post-rehabilitation, by which time the patient may have learnt to manage symptoms more effectively, have gained conﬁdence and improved level of function. Within the context of risk stratiﬁcation, assessing cardiac symptoms directly links the ischaemic burden and functional capacity, if the patient can describe a level of exertion required to bring on symptoms. However, it must be remem- bered that the relationship between symptoms, functional ability and disease severity is complex; patients with the most severe disease do not always demonstrate the most limitation or disability. Lewin (1997) suggests that other Risk Stratiﬁcation and Health Screening for Exercise 35 factors, such as health beliefs, anxiety and depression, personality, social support, social class and the patient’s own attempts to cope will inﬂuence the level of disability demonstrated (see more in Chapter 8). OCCUPATION Return to work is an important measure of successful CR for some individu- als with CHD. Variables which contribute to a successful return to employ- ment or being considered ﬁt to work include shift patterns, self-efﬁcacy, perception of control over work demands and physical job requirements (ACSM, 2001). The process of assessment for exercise, the consequent advice and guidance, and the exercise prescription itself should contribute to a tailored return to work needs for appropriate patients. These discussions to establish realistic return to work plans should commence as early as possible in the rehabilita- tion process. The aims of the occupational assessment are: • discuss job demands (physical and psychological) and concerns; • provide provisional timelines for return to work based on job analysis; • provide an individualised exercise prescription based on job analysis; • consider whether speciﬁc occupational carrying or lifting tests should be used for prescription. Occupation, work conditions and demands may also impact on patients’ ability to commit to attending cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The clinician may need to consider adapting supervised sessions or creating ﬂexibility within pro- grammes to accommodate work commitments, or to involve, where possible, not only the patient but the employer or occupational health representative in planning a rehabilitation programme. When considering occupation, level of physical effort, including arm versus leg work, carrying and lifting activities, sustained versus bouts of exer- tion and environmental conditions could inﬂuence the type of exercise pre- scribed for assisting return to work. Driving occupations often require re-licensing using strict criteria on ETT (DVLA, 2004). The CR clinician can use assessment information and rehabilitation to prepare the patient for ETT requirements or to ascertain whether attainment of the level of func- tional capacity required for re-licensing is realistic for that individual. A detailed discussion around occupation at baseline assessment will reveal whether the patient considers himself or herself ready for return to work. This discussion is important when setting and working towards patient-centred goals. Despite many patients reporting that their jobs are physically active, most occupations require an energy expenditure of less than 5METs (ACSM, 2001). As the patient population within phase III cardiac rehabilitation expanded and became more inclusive for those with more limited exercise ability, either through age or complex medical history, so our assessment had to expand to consider a diverse and substantial number and combination of orthopaedic, neurological, respiratory, vascular and musculoskeletal conditions. Of the 701 interventions carried out over a two-month period, 72% of these were to adapt exercise programmes in light of non-cardiac conditions or to give advice on the same. This highlights the importance both of individualising exercise prescription in the presence of co- morbidity and of having suitably trained exercise professionals to assess, advise patients and deliver phase III cardiac rehabilitation. The increase in participants with co-morbidity presents the exercise pro- fessional in cardiac rehabilitation with prescription and programme manage- ment challenges that will be further discussed in Chapter 4. Limitation of functional capacity will often be attributable not to coronary heart disease but to co-morbid conditions. This may mean that functional capacity assessed by means of walking is both ineffective and inappropriate. Can we, therefore, effectively prescribe exercise to accommodate this diver- sity, and can we implement outcomes to measure the effectiveness of our interventions? Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a gold standard for measuring physical functioning, either by performance-based or self-report measures (Pepin, et al. As with most aspects of CR it is likely that a variety of measures will need to be considered on an indi- vidual patient basis. In addition, there are proposals of a link between co-morbidity and risk during exercise. They also applied a co-morbidity index (CMI) which ‘predicts short and long-term mortality rates for a speciﬁc medical condition’. This CMI index has been shown to indicate a ‘progressive 10-fold increase in mortality as the score increases’, with common co-morbid conditions given a weighted score.
10 of 10 - Review by D. Jensgar
Votes: 78 votes
Total customer reviews: 78