DiversityNursing Blog

Liberia released its last Ebola patient, a 58-year old English teacher, from a treatment center in the capital Thursday, beginning its countdown to being Ebola-free.

"I am one of the happiest human beings today on earth because it was not easy going through this situation and coming out alive," Beatrice Yardolo said after her release.

She says she became infected while caring for a sick child.

"I was bathing her. I used to carry her from the bathroom alone because nobody wanted to take any risk. That is how I got in contact," she said.

Yardolo, a mother of five, said she had been admitted to the Chinese-run Ebola treatment center in Monrovia on Feb. 18.

"I am so overwhelmed because my family has been through a very difficult period from January to now. And to know that it's all coming to an end is a very delightful news. I'm so happy," Yardolo's son, Joel Yardolo, told reporters.

Tolbert Nyenswah, assistant health minister and head of the country's Ebola response, says there are no other confirmed cases of Ebola.

"For the past 13 days the entire Republic of Liberia has gone without a confirmed Ebola virus disease," Nyenswah told reporters. "This doesn't mean that Ebola is all over in Liberia."

After a 42-day countdown - two full incubation periods for the virus to cause an infection - the country can be declared Ebola-free. Officials are monitoring 102 people who have been in recent contact with an Ebola patient.

Since the epidemic started a year ago, Liberia has recorded 9,265 cases of Ebola, with 4,057 deaths. But the World Health Organization says there are almost certainly more cases than that. WHO says close to 24,000 cases have been recorded, and close to 10,000 deaths, in the entire West African epidemic.

-- The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this story

Source: www.nbcnews.com

ELIZA MURPHY

It’s a battle they never thought they’d face, let alone at the same time.

Missy and Brooke Shatley, a mother and daughter from Prairie Farm, Wisconsin, both have cancer. They were diagnosed only 13 days apart.

“It’s that unbelief,” Missy, 38, told ABC News of her reaction when they learned the devastating news. “You feel numb like this can’t really be happening. This is happening to somebody else, it could never be you.”

Missy was diagnosed with stage 2 cervical cancer on December 26, the day after Christmas.

“I went in for my annual physical and that was the result of it,” she explained.

Then on January 8, Brooke, Missy and her husband Jason’s oldest child, was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer.

“Why us? Why?,” Missy asked. “Is it something in our water? Is it genetic? Why both of us in such a short time frame? The doctor said it’s not the water, it’s not the environment, it’s just a freak act of nature.”

Before Missy’s diagnosis, Brooke, 14, had been experiencing severe abdominal pain that went undiagnosed for several weeks.

“The doctors told us she had a baseball-sized hemorrhagic disc and it would go away on its own and we should just wait,” Missy explained. “We waited for a few weeks and thought, ‘This is ridiculous,’ and we sought a second opinion.”

The Shatley’s then took Brooke to see the same specialist that had just diagnosed her mom days earlier. The devastating news was that Brooke’s tumor was larger than they originally suspected and needed to be operated on immediately.

“It was a four-and-a-half hour surgery,” Missy recalled. “It was a football-sized tumor. It had intertwined in her abdomen. You couldn’t tell by looking at her belly, but it was football-sized.”

The brave mother-daughter duo began undergoing intense treatments at the same time in Marshfield, Wisconsin, about two hours from their home--understandably weighing heavily on husband and father Jason, a dairy farmer, who was traveling back and forth to take care of them while also tending to their other two children and maintaining their farm.

“It’s hard,” Missy said. “Just to even think, ‘That’s my wife and daughter,’ how does anybody deal with that? Plus we have two other kids at home so he’s trying to be a husband, father, keep up with the farm, he’s being pulled in so many directions, how do you even begin?”

This week has been better for the family, however. Both Missy and Brooke are back home, resting and enjoying their time, although possibly brief, out of the hospital.

Missy just completed her final round of radiation and chemotherapy on March 2. She now must wait eight to 12 weeks before they can tell how effective the treatment was on her cancer.

Brooke still has one more round of chemo to complete, tentatively scheduled to begin on March 9.

Although their simultaneous diagnosis has been difficult, Missy says, in a way, it’s been nice to have that newfound bond with her daughter.

“You don’t want to experience it with anybody, but if you have to, doing it as a mother-daughter is helpful,” she said. “You’re bonding over raw emotions. It’s definitely a connection that you form.”

On March 28 their community is holding a benefit for the resilient pair, which Missy says is just one of the generous things they’ve done to help throughout this process.

“Not in a million years could I imagine the outreach we’ve had,” she said. “The surrounding communities have been phenomenal. We have a dairy farm so we’ve had people volunteer to do chores, saw wood, make meals, provide transportation for the other kids when we need it--anything and everything they’ve offered up.”

Most importantly, she added, “Prayers, lots of prayers.”

Source: http://abcnews.go.com

James McIntosh

It is vital that treatment for stroke is given as quickly as possible in order to minimize the amount of long-term damage that occurs. Unfortunately, a new study has suggested that one third of Americans would be unable to access a primary stroke center within 1 hour should they need to.

The study, published online in Neurology, was a population-level virtual trial simulating how long it would take for patients to access stroke care following changes to systems of treatment.

"Research has shown that specialized stroke care has the potential to reduce death and disability," says study author Dr. Michael T. Mullen. "Stroke is a time-critical disease. Each second after a stroke begins, brain cells die, so it is critically important that specialized stroke care be rapidly accessible to the population."

According to the authors, stroke is one of the leading causes of death and disability in the US, occurring when the flow of blood to a portion of the brain is blocked or an artery in the brain ruptures or leaks.

In 2012, the beginnings of a three-tiered regionalized system of care were implemented. This involved the designation of certain hospitals as primary stroke centers (PSCs) and comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs), with CSCs providing the highest level of care.

Dr. Mullen and his colleagues decided to create virtual models in order to estimate what percentage of the population would have access to a comprehensive stroke center after selectively converting a number of primary stroke centers to facilities providing a higher level of care.

"In this report, we demonstrate how mathematical optimization modeling can inform the strategic development of the US network of stroke centers by simulating the conversion of PSCs into CSCs," the authors write. "This allows for virtual trials of competing system configurations in order to design a system that maximizes population access to care."

Reduced access to specialized stroke care could worsen pre-existing disparities in health

Data from 2010 was utilized, at which point there were 811 PSCs and no CSCs in the US. The researchers converted up to 20 PSCs in each state into CSCs and calculated how long it would take local populations to access these treatment facilities by ambulance or plane in optimum conditions.

After converting the PSCs to CSCs, the researchers found that only 63% would live within a 1-hour drive of a CSC, with an additional 23% within a 1-hour flight of one. 

"Even under optimal conditions, many people may not have rapid access to comprehensive stroke centers, and without oversight and population level planning, actual systems of care are likely to be substantially worse than these optimized models," says Dr. Mullen.

Levels of access to care also varied in different geographical areas. Worryingly, access to care was lowest in an area often referred to as the "Stroke Belt" - 11 states where stroke death rates are more than 10% higher than the national average, predominantly situated in the southeast of the US.

"Reduced access to specialized stroke care in these areas has the potential to worsen these disparities," says Dr. Mullen. "This emphasizes the need for oversight of developing systems of care."

The authors suggest the actual number of CSCs that will be established is likely to be much smaller than 20 per state, and that increasing the number of CSCs is not an ideal way to improve access for patients due to the high costs involved.

A number of limitations are acknowledged, such as using trauma data to calculate the amount of time taken to reach a hospital, and calculating population access to hospitals using where people live, rather than where strokes occur. However, the authors argue that the majority of strokes (over 70%) occur at home.

In a linked editorial, Dr. Adam G. Kelly and Dr. John Attia suggest that CSC status is likely to be determined more by financial motives, however, rather than a population health basis.

They write that timely accessibility of PSC services, either on-site or via telemedicine, should be the first priority in the organization of regional stroke care. Following this, "CSCs should be added in a coordinated, stepwise manner with regional needs - not hospital bottom lines - as the major determinant for new CSCs."

Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com

Yagana Shah

Bailey Johnson 

Some people like skydiving. Good for them. Some of us would prefer to stay on the ground where it's safe. But, you know, this video is sort of comforting in a way, because it shows that skydiving instructors are well-trained and know how to respond in a crisis. In another way, of course, this video is ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING.

The video description has it all: "Possibly the scariest moment of my life. On the 14th of November 2014 while doing stage five of my Accelerated Free Fall program I have a near death experience. At around 9000ft I have a seizure while attempting a left hand turn. I then spend the next 30 seconds in free fall unconscious. Thankfully my jumpmaster manages to pull my ripcord at around 4000ft. I become conscious at 3000 ft and land safely back to the ground."

Yeah, we'll be staying on the ground, thanks.

Source: http://whatstrending.com

Sandee LaMotte

"Our data raise questions about the current recommendations," said Mayo pulmonologist, Dr. David E. Midthun, one of the study authors. "We do not have the best tool to identify who is at risk for lung cancer."

Current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT screening for adults age 55 to 80 who have smoked 30 pack-years (one pack a day for 30 years), and who currently smoke or have stopped smoking within the last 15 years. This criteria is used by doctors and insurance companies to recommend and pay for scans.

According to the researchers, the percentage of lung cancer patients who smoked at least 30 pack-years declined over the study period while the proportion of cancer patients who had quit for more than 15 years rose. 

"As smokers quit earlier and stay off cigarettes longer, fewer are eligible for CT screening, which has been proven effective in saving lives," said epidemiologist Dr. Ping Yang in a statement released by the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. "Patients who do eventually develop lung cancer are diagnosed at a later stage when treatment can no longer result in a cure."

Over the study period the percentage of lung cancer patients who would have been eligible for CT screening under current guidelines fell dramatically: from 56.8% in 1984-1990 to 43.3% in 2005-2011. The proportion of men who would have been eligible decreased from 60% to 49.7%, while the percentage of women dropped from 52.3% to 36.6%. 

Researchers worry about the trend. "We don't want to disincentive patients to stop smoking," Midthun told CNN in a phone interview. "When I told one of my patients about the study, his first question was, 'If I stop smoking will I have to stop screening?'"

"We want people to stop smoking, and we don't want them to lie or continue smoking just so they can be screened," added Midthun. "We need better tools to make risk calculations for those who should be screened."

The Mayo study did not take into account other risk factors for lung cancer, such as personal and family history for lung cancer or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) because they are not in the current guidelines for reimbursement. For example, COPD "raises a person's risk for lung cancer by four to six times," said Midthun, yet "only age and pack year history are in the guidelines."

"There's nothing magical in 30-year pack history," added Midthun. He told CNN that age is an equally important factor. "For example, if a person stops smoking at age 55, his risk of lung cancer at age 70 is higher than it was at age 55 when he quit."

The study was published in the February 24, 2015 issue of JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association. It was funded by the Mayo Clinic and grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging.

Source: www.cnn.com

LIZ NEPORENT

Throwing a surprise “Sweet 16” party in the age of cellphones and social media is no easy task. But an entire Virginia community pulled it off for a girl with cancer.

The night of her birthday, Abby Snider thought she was going to give a speech to help raise money for the Stillbrave Childhood Cancer Foundation, a local charity that provides non-medical support for the families of kids with cancer. It was all part of an elaborate ruse to bring the teen to the George Washington Hotel in Winchester, Virginia, last Thursday evening, where 100 people (including a team from ABC affiliate WJLA) were waiting.

Snider, who was diagnosed with leukemia a year ago, spent weeks writing her speech. At the same time a group of friends, family and complete strangers worked quietly behind her back to plan the big bash. AES, a local car service, provided a stretch limo. SAS salon arranged for makeup. Other vendors donated food, flowers, photography and entertainment.

Snider’s parents had wanted to throw her the fancy sweet 16 she has been dreaming about since she was 2, she said, but with the mounting medical bills it just wasn’t in their budget. Tom Mitchell, who runs StillBrave, stepped in to rally local businesses.

“It was amazing to see how many people in community embraced the idea and helped to pull it all together,” he said.

Snider was expecting a car to pick her up for the fundraiser, so she said she was pleased rather than suspicious when a stretch limo pulled up to her house. She thought the makeup session was simply a nice touch too. None of this tipped her off to the party.

But when she walked into the ballroom and everyone shouted, “Surprise,” Snider told ABC News she was blown away.

 “At first I was confused and then I started screaming and then I started crying," she said. “It was awesome. I literally felt like Cinderella for the night.”

Snider said the chemo used to treat her disease has brought her to the brink of death several times. Just recently she spent three weeks in the hospital with acute pancreatitis that resulted from her latest treatment.

“There are times you just want to give up but you have to keep going,” she said. “Even when it’s hard you just have to keep fighting.”

After missing last year’s birthday because she was too ill, Snider said she’d hoped for some kind of party this year, even if it was something small. Mitchell told ABC News he was relieved that all involved managed to keep it a secret.

“I hated lying to her but she definitely bought it hook, line and sinker,” he said.

Mitchell said the only downside to the ruse was that Snider worked so hard on a speech she didn’t get to deliver. But Snider said she’s good with that.

“I was freaking out about it and I was so relieved I didn’t have to give it,” she said. “I’ll save it for another time.”

Source: abcnews.go.com

Markus MacGill

As part of its campaign against "too much medicine" The BMJ has published reviews that question the value of screening for breast cancer in women and aneurysm in men - asking whether the harm of "over-diagnosis" outweighs the benefit of detecting and treating real cases of disease.

In the case of breast cancer, the analysis of the history of screening for the disease, written by a public health expert, calls for "urgent agreement" in the debate and controversy that exists between scientists.

For abdominal aortic aneurysm, the review about screening men who do not have symptoms suggests that the ratio of harm to benefit of carrying out these programs has worsened over the years.

This, they say, is thanks to a reduction in risk factors such as smoking, which has reduced the chance that screening will succeed in finding actual cases.

And a third paper looks at the results of surveys that gauged the level of over-diagnosis people would accept from screening programs aiming to detect different cancers - finding a wide range of attitudes to the harm or benefit of screening.

In the research on abdominal aortic aneurysm (a swelling in the main artery from the heart, which can lead to death when it ruptures), the authors estimate that 176 of every 10,000 men invited to screening are over-diagnosed. 

This means smaller aneurysms being picked up - and perhaps being repaired in preventive surgery - even though they might have swelled little and presented a low risk of rupturing. 

The researchers describe the real-life consequences of the programs, which, in the UK, invite all men over the age of 65 for screening, and in the US, only those who have smoked (a risk factor that greatly increases the likelihood of an aneurysm). They explain:

"These men are unnecessarily turned into patients and may experience appreciable anxiety throughout their remaining lives."

"Moreover," the authors continue, "37 of these men [out of every 10,000 screened] unnecessarily have preventive surgery and 1.6 of them die as a consequence." 

The authors quote men who have had abdominal aortic aneurysms detected by screening - they "report existential thoughts about frailty and mortality after diagnosis." One man describes his diagnosis as "a ticking bomb inside your stomach."

In addition to such risks of psychological burden, the authors cite the surgical risks for those who undergo a preventive operation, and the public health implications over cost-effectiveness.

"When health authorities invite asymptomatic men to screening, there should be no doubt that benefits clearly outweigh harms," the authors conclude. "We cannot judge whether this is true of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: the harms have not been adequately investigated, as is true for cancer screening."

Value of breast cancer screening 'can be improved'

On the question of how good the harm-to-benefit ratio is for breast cancer screening, Prof. Alexandra Barratt, from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney in Australia, gives an overview of the history of screening programs, and offers a list of ways to improve their benefit.

Writing her review for The BMJ's "too much medicine" campaign, Prof. Barratt believes "agreement between experts about over-diagnosis in breast cancer screening is urgently needed so that women can be better informed." She presses for the following measures, too:

• Do better research to quantify the true amount of over-diagnosis - by developing "internationally agreed standards" for studies that monitor the problem created by screening programs
• Investigate less aggressive treatment options for screen-detected breast cancers
• Be more wary of new technology - for example, digital mammography has increased cancer detection without reducing death rates, so three-dimensional mammography (tomosynthesis), which "promises a 30-50% increase in detection of breast cancers" should not be implemented without more research on "whether it alters the balance of benefit and harm"
• Provide quality information to women. "Many women continue to be 'prescribed' or encouraged to undergo screening rather than being supported to make an informed choice," says Prof. Barratt, yet "information is an intervention that may have both positive and detrimental effects"
• Think twice before extending screening programs - "extending screening to women in their 70s has been shown to significantly increase the incidence of early-stage breast cancer, and this could have detrimental effects for older women."

Prof. Barrett says lessons have been learned in breast cancer screening that should inform programs for other cancers. Breast cancer has "led the way in developing awareness" about the potential for screening to over-diagnose and treat people who have no symptoms, and this is also needed for "the early detection of lung and thyroid cancers, as well as breast and prostate cancers."

This neatly leads to the subject of the third paper, on cancer screening more generally, which analyzes people's risk attitudes in relation to the early detection of different cancers and varying levels of benefit.

Over-detection is acceptable to patients

Dr. Ann Van den Bruel - a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford's Nuffield department of primary care health sciences in the UK - conducted a survey with colleagues "to describe the level of over-detection people would find acceptable in screening for breast, prostate and bowel cancer."

Her "striking" findings, from asking people in the UK's general population, were that more people would accept a screening program that created over-detection "in the entire population" being tested than would accept "no over-detection at all."

People aged 50 or older accepted less over-detection, however, and there was a wide overall variation in the risks of over-diagnosis that people would accept from cancer screening.

The average levels of "acceptability" ranged from 113 cases of over-detection in every 1,000 people screened, to 313 cases.

People were significantly less happy to accept the risk of being over-diagnosed with bowel cancer than they were of this happening with breast or prostate cancer - the latter, in other words, being more worthwhile screening for in terms of perceived benefit versus risk.

The following results from the study highlight the two extremes expressed for attitudes to screening:

• 4-7% of respondents indicated they would tolerate no amount of over-detection at all from a screening program
• 7-14% considered it would be acceptable for the entire screened population to be over-detected - that is, doing the screening would be worthwhile even if it resulted in all 1,000 people tested being unnecessarily diagnosed.

The survey asked questions about three different types of cancer screening: breast cancer for women, prostate cancer for men, and bowel cancer for both.

For each type, the researchers presented the absolute number of cases there were each year in the UK, plus a description of the treatment, including adverse effects. They then presented two scenarios of screening effectiveness: a 10% reduction in deaths from the specific cancer, or a 50% cut.

Dr. Van den Bruel says:

"People accepted more over-detection when they perceived a higher benefit from cancer screening, so from a 10% mortality reduction to 50% mortality reduction, median acceptability increased significantly, with a maximum of 313 cases per 1,000 people screened for breast cancer."

Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com

 

 

  PAULA SPAN

What she wanted, the patient told the geriatricians evaluating her, was to be able to return to her condominium in Boston. She had long lived there on her own, lifting weights to keep fit and doing her own grocery shopping, until a heart condition worsened and she could barely manage the stairs.

So at 94, she consented to valve replacement surgery at a Boston medical center. “She never wanted to go to a nursing home,” said Dr. Perla Macip, one of the patient’s geriatricians. “That was her worst fear.”

Dr. Macip presented the case on Saturday to a meeting of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. The presentation’s dispiriting title: “The 30-Day Mortality Rule in Surgery: Does This Number Prolong Unnecessary Suffering in Vulnerable Elderly Patients?”

Like Dr. Macip, a growing number of physicians and researchers have grown critical of 30-day mortality as a measure of surgical success. That seemingly innocuous metric, they argue, may actually undermine appropriate care, especially for older adults.

The experience of Dr. Macip’s patient — whom she calls Ms. S. — shows why.

Ms. S. sustained cardiopulmonary arrest during the operation and needed resuscitation. A series of complications followed: irregular heartbeat, fluid in her lungs, kidney damage, pneumonia. She had a stroke and moved in and out of the intensive care unit, off and on a ventilator.

After two weeks, “she was depressed and stopped eating,” Dr. Macip said. The geriatricians recommended a “goals of care” discussion to clarify whether Ms. S., who remained mentally clear, wanted to continue such aggressive treatment.

But “the surgeons were optimistic that she would recover” and declined, Dr. Macip said.

So a discussion of palliative care options was deferred until Day 30 after her operation, by which time Ms. S. had developed sepsis and multiple-organ failure. She died on Day 31, after life support was discontinued.

The key number here, surgeons and other medical professionals will recognize, is 30.

Thirty-day mortality serves as a traditional yardstick for surgical quality. Several states, including Massachusetts, require public reporting of 30-day mortality after cardiac procedures. Medicare has also begun to use certain risk-adjusted 30-day mortality measures, like deaths after pneumonia and heart attacks, to penalize hospitals with poor performance and reward those with better outcomes.

However laudable the intent, reliance on 30-day mortality as a surgical report card has also generated growing controversy. Some experts believe pressures for superior 30-day statistics can cause unacknowledged harm, discouraging surgery for patients who could benefit and sentencing others to long stays in I.C.U.s and nursing homes.

“Thirty days is a game-able number,” said Dr. Gretchen Schwarze, a vascular surgeon at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and co-author of an editorial on the metric in JAMA Surgery. Last fall, she led a session about the ethics of 30-day mortality reporting at an American College of Surgeons conference.

“Surgeons in the audience stood up and said, ‘I can’t operate on some people because it’s going to hurt our 30-day mortality statistics,’” she recalled. The debate is particularly urgent for older adults, who are more likely to undergo surgery and to have complications.

Those questioning the 30-day metric point to potential dilemmas at both ends of the surgical spectrum. Surgeons may decline to operate on high-risk patients, even those who understand and accept the trade-offs, because of fears (conscious or not) that deaths could hurt their 30-day results.

At a hospital in Pennsylvania, for instance, a cardiothoracic surgeon declined to operate on a man who urgently needed a mitral valve replacement. He wasn’t elderly, at 53, but he was an alcoholic whose liver damage increased his risk of dying.

Dr. Douglas White, the director of ethics and decision-making in critical illness at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, was asked to consult. According to Dr. White, the surgeon explained that “we have been told that our publicly reported numbers are bad, and we have to take fewer high-risk patients.”

Other surgeons at the hospital, under similar pressure, also refused. A helicopter flew the patient to another hospital for surgery.

An outlier case? A study in JAMA in 2012 compared three states that require public reporting of coronary stenting results to seven nearby states that didn’t report. Older-adult patients having acute heart attacks had substantially lower rates of the stenting in the reporting states. Doctors’ concerns about disclosure of poor outcomes might have led them to perform fewer procedures, the authors speculated; they might also have weeded out poorer candidates for surgery.

Perhaps as important for older people, when things go wrong, surgical teams concerned about their 30-day metrics may delay important conversations about palliative care or hospice, or even override advance directives.

“There are no good published studies on this, but it’s something we see,” Dr. White said. “Surgeons are reluctant to withdraw life support before 30 days, and less reluctant after 30 days.”

That may have been what happened to Ms. S. Or perhaps her aggressive treatment resulted from a surgical ethos that has little to do with mortality reports.

“We want to cure patients and help them live, and we consider it a failure if they don’t,” said Dr. Anne Mosenthal, who heads the American College of Surgeons committee on surgical palliative care.

With surgeons already prone to optimism and disinclined to withdraw life support, the effect of reporting failures, if there is one, is subtle. Surgeons tell themselves, “Maybe if we wait a little longer, he’ll improve; there’s always a chance,” Dr. Mosenthal said.

But many older patients, and their families, have different ideas about what makes life worth sustaining and might welcome a frank discussion before a month passes.

“The 30-day mortality statistic creates a conflict of interests,” said Dr. Lisa Lehmann, an associate professor of medical ethics at Harvard Medical School. “It can lead to the violation of a physician’s duty to put patients’ interests first.”

Leaders at the nonprofit National Quality Forum, which just endorsed 30-day mortality as a measure for coronary bypass surgery, find such fears overblown. The forum evaluates quality measures for Medicare and other insurers, and went ahead with its endorsement despite some physicians’ objections.

“There is some concern,” said Dr. Helen Burstin, the chief scientific officer of the forum, but “certainly no evidence” that the metric is unduly influencing patient care.

“Is it better not to measure and compare, just because we can’t get it perfect?” added Dr. Lee Fleisher, a co-chairman of the forum’s surgery standing committee.

But critics think other quality measures might serve better. Perhaps the benchmark should be 60- or 90-day mortality. Perhaps patients having palliative surgery to relieve symptoms should be tracked separately, because comfort is their goal, not survival.

Maybe quality should include days spent in an I.C.U. or on a ventilator, Dr. Schwarze said.

“Medicine isn’t just about keeping people alive,” she said. “Some of it is about relieving suffering. Some of it is about helping people die.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

A University of Missouri nurse researcher is working to ensure people who use hearing aids for the first time are not bombarded by sounds that could be overwhelming and potentially painful. 

Individuals who wear hearing aids for the first time can potentially hear sounds they have not heard in months of even years, according to a University of Missouri news release on the research. The study, published online Dec. 17, in the journal Clinical Nursing Research, looked at the feasibility and initial effect of Hearing Aid Reintroduction to assist people 70 to 85 years old to adjust to hearing aids.

Some of the noises hearing aids enable their users to hear are not always easy to embrace, researchers found. These include air conditioners, wind and background conversations which can be annoying, painful and tough to ignore, the release said.

Kari Lane, PhD, RN, MOT, assistant professor of nursing at MU Sinclair School of Nursing, studied a group of elderly adults’ satisfaction with hearing aids after participating in HEAR, according to the release. Study participants recorded the total time they wore hearing aids for 30 days. Participants gradually increased the amount of time they wore the hearing aids and the variety and complexity of sounds they experienced, including household appliances or sounds from crowded areas, the release said. 

“Hearing loss is a common health problem facing many aging adults that can have serious effects on their quality of life, including heightened chances of depression and dementia,” Lane said in the release. “Hearing aids are not an easy fix to hearing loss. Unlike glasses, which provide instant results, it takes more time for the brains of hearing-aid users to fully adjust to the aids and new sounds they could not hear before.”

All participants at the start of the research reported being unsatisfied with their hearing aids, Lane said. At the end of the study, more than half of participants reported being able to increase their hearing aid use and 60% of them said they were satisfied with their hearing aids, the release stated. 

“It is common practice for audiologists to have their patients wear hearing aids all day when they first buy them, but not all persons are able to do this comfortably,” Lane said in the release. “Prior research shows there is a need for alternative ways to teach people how to use hearing aids like the HEAR intervention, which allows hearing-aid users to gradually adjust to using the aids while receiving support and coaching from health professionals and family members.”

Healthcare providers should give patients guidance on conditions they might experience during the aging process, such as hearing loss, according to the release. Such proaction could help to reduce the stigma surrounding hearing aids, Lane said. 

“If healthcare professionals begin discussing hearing loss with their patients sooner, before problems arise, the use of hearing aids could be normalized, and individuals would be better prepared for the transition when it is time for them to begin use,” Lane said in the release. 

Source: http://news.nurse.com