Something Powerful

Tell The Reader More

The headline and subheader tells us what you're offering, and the form header closes the deal. Over here you can explain why your offer is so great it's worth filling out a form for.

Remember:

  • Bullets are great
  • For spelling out benefits and
  • Turning visitors into leads.

DiversityNursing Blog

The Great American Kidney Swap

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Fri, May 01, 2015 @ 11:41 AM

By 

www.nytimes.com 

03kidney ss slide U201 superJumbo v2 resized 600Before surgeons stitched a kidney from a 32-year-old former Marine into his abdomen in March, Mark Kim spent almost two years on dialysis. He had lot of time to think while hooked up to the machine, three times a week, as it pumped his blood out of his body, purified it and pumped it back in. Sometimes he found himself mulling over how odd it was that a new kidney — the one thing he needed most — was something money couldn’t buy.

When his kidneys first failed him, all sorts of people offered to donate one: his neighbor, his two 20-something nieces, two old friends, his sister. But none could follow through, mostly because of incompatible blood types. Such supply-and-demand mismatches can cause prices to skyrocket in a normal market, and indeed, Kim heard hints about the organ’s economic value along the way. Once, at a backyard barbecue, a woman whispered to him that her mother purchased a kidney on the black market for $100,000.

Despite the crushing demand, the sale of kidneys is banned in every country in the world except Iran. In the U.S., more than 100,000 people with renal failure are on the list for a deceased-donor kidney, typically waiting between four and five years. Last year, 4,270 people died waiting. Few but free-market absolutists would argue for repealing the 1984 law banning the organ trade in the U.S., but most would agree something should be done to increase the supply of kidneys for transplant. In a sense, though, there’s already a global glut: While we are born with two kidneys, we can function just fine with one. The problem is that they’re stuck inside of us.

Kim would have continued to wait on the national list, despite having several willing donors, were it not for a company called BiologicTx. Thanks to its software, Kim was able swap his sister’s kidney for the Marine’s kidney. The Marine, a woman named Liz Torres, gave up her kidney to ensure that her mother got a kidney, which came from a young social worker, Ana Tafolla Rios, who was a better match. Rios passed hers along to secure one for her ailing mother from Keith Rodriguez, a young man from Fresno. He let go of his to procure one for his mom, Norma, a 52-year-old dental assistant with polycystic kidney disease. All these people underwent surgery over two days in March at the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, in what is called a kidney-transplant chain. The software programs driving such chains create something like a marketplace for organs — but one where supply and demand are balanced not through pricing but through altruism.

A law-abiding American in need of a kidney has two options. The first is to wait on the national list for an organ donor to die in (or near) a hospital. The second is to find a person willing to donate a kidney to you. More than half the time, such donor-and-recipient pairs are incompatible, because of differences in blood type or the presence, in the donor’s blood, of proteins that might trigger the recipient’s immune system to reject the new kidney. The genius of the computer algorithms driving the kidney chains is that they find the best medical matches — thus increasing the odds of a successful transplant — by decoupling donors from their intended recipients. In the United States, half a dozen of these software programs allow for a kind of barter market for kidneys. This summer, doctors will most likely complete the last two operations in a record-breaking 70-person chain that involved flying donated kidneys on commercial airlines to several hospitals across the country.

Garet Hil, the founder and chief executive of the National Kidney Registry, the largest kidney-chain exchange program in the world, has a background in financial services, not medicine. He borrowed concepts from the brokerage industry when developing the registry’s algorithm. Hil founded the organization after the emotionally grueling experience of obtaining a kidney for his 10-year-old daughter. After seven family members, including Hil and his wife, volunteered to donate theirs, all seven were found to be a poor match. (Eventually they found a compatible cousin.)

Each chain starts with a completely altruistic donor, someone who expects nothing in return. In the case of the San Francisco chain, that person was Zully Broussard, a 55-year-old mental-health nurse who works in a prison. Broussard lost her 21-year-old son to bone-cartilage cancer in 2001. Then, in 2013, her husband died of colon cancer. “I know what it is to want an extra hour, an extra day, with someone you love,” she told me. Directed by the algorithm, Broussard’s kidney ended up inside a complete stranger, a 26-year-old factory worker, Oswaldo Padilla, with a 6-year-old daughter, setting off the 12-person chain that included Kim and his sister and ended with an interior designer named Verle Breschini.

Economists call an arrangement like this a matching market. “It is not fundamental to economic theory to assume people are selfish,” Alvin E. Roth, an economist who teaches at Stanford University, told me. Roth won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2012 for his work using game theory to design matching markets, which pair unmatched things in mutually beneficial ways — students with public schools and doctors with hospitals. In such markets, money does not decide who gets what. Instead, these transactions are more akin to elaborate courtships.

The classic example of a matching market is the college-admissions process. Every year, tens of thousands of students apply to Harvard University. But just because a student wants a spot in the freshman class and can afford tuition does not mean he gets in. Harvard must also wanthim to attend. In the case of kidney exchange, this matchmaking happens at a microcellular level. White blood cells contain genetic markers, proteins that help our immune systems distinguish between our bodies and foreign invaders. The more closely a transplant recipient’s genetic markers match a donor’s, the more likely the body is to adopt that foreign kidney as its own rather than attacking it.

All these genetic variables mean that linking unrelated donors and recipients requires the kind of computational heft humans can’t manage with pen and paper. For example, BiologicTx currently has 72 people in a computer database waiting to give or receive a kidney. Run the software to find biologically compatible matches among those 72 people, and you get 105,716 possible configurations — some long chains, others short. Some people in the database have no possible matches. Others, genetically blessed, have thousands of potential matching options within the pool. The software ranks those possible pairings based on hundreds of different immunological, genetic and demographic criteria, while also aiming to create longer chains of harder-to-match people which will ultimately result in more transplants.

Last year in the United States, 544 kidneys were transplanted through these paired exchange programs, and many other countries are beginning to adopt them. Surgeons in Poland, Italy and Argentina completed their first chains last year. As more donor-and-recipient pairs enroll, the chains can accommodate increasingly complicated transactions. In December, for example, a transplant surgeon at U.C.L.A. removed the kidney from a grandfather who donated on behalf of his young grandson. The boy suffers from chronic kidney disease, but his doctors have determined he does not yet require a transplant. The grandfather feared that if he waited the five or 10 years until the boy needed the kidney, he would be too old to donate. So the boy and his grandfather joined the National Kidney Registry, using the grandfather’s kidney to kick off a chain, thereby securing a kidney for the boy, who will be the last recipient in another chain at some unspecified future date.

Mark Kim had his operation two months ago, and ever since, people have been telling him that his voice seems different, that somehow he sounds more alive. And at a biological level, every cell in his body feels better. But that vitality extends beyond his physical well-being. He is now one link in a visceral chain of sacrifice and benefit. It feels, to him, a little bit like kinship.

Topics: America, health, healthcare, hospitals, transplant, black market, kidney, donors, organ donors

The State of Women in Healthcare: An Update

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Mon, Mar 30, 2015 @ 10:11 AM

Halle Tecco

Source: http://rockhealth.com 

Exactly a year ago, we decided to publish the gender data on founders at Rock Health. Despite women being the majority of our team and our board, only 30% of our portfolio companies had a female founder (today, we are at almost 34%). Because we’d like to help our portfolio companies access a diverse talent pool, we began the XX in Health initiative nearly four years ago.

The aim of this initiative is to bring women together to network and support one another. The 2,400 members of the group share resources and ideas on LinkedIn and meet regularly across the country. This week we’re hosting a webinar on the topic for both men and women, and next week we’ll host our sixth XX in Health Retreat in NYC.

Today, through this initiative, we are proud to share our third annual report on the state of women in healthcare. Our past reports on this topic have been some of our most popular content, and we encourage you to share this report with your colleagues.

Women are still underrepresented in leadership positions in healthcare.

Despite making up more than half the healthcare workforce, women represent only 21% of executives and 21% of board members at Fortune 500 healthcare companies. Of the 125 women who carry an executive title, only five serve in operating roles as COO or President. And there’s only one woman CEOof a Fortune 500 healthcare company.

Hospital diversity fares slightly better. At Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals, women make up 27% of hospital boards, and 34% of leadership teams. There are 97 women that carry a C-level title at these hospitals and 10 women serve as hospital CEO.

We know from our funding data that women make up only 6% of digital health CEOs funded in the last four years. When we looked at the gender breakdown of the 148 VC firms investing in digital health, we understood why. Women make up only 10% of partners, those responsible for making final investment decisions. In fact, 75 of those firms have ZERO women partners (including Highland CapitalThird RockSequoiaShasta Ventures). Venture firms with women investment partners are 3X more likely to investin companies with women CEOs. It’s no wonder women CEOs aren’t getting funded.

The problem is real, and the problem matters.

We surveyed over 400 women in the industry to better understand the sentiment around gender discrimination. 96% of the women we surveyed believe gender discrimination still exists. And almost half of them cited gender as one of the biggest hurdles they’ve faced professionally.

png base64f7b3675545c74082 resized 600

Often these are micro-inequities that compound over one’s career. MIT Professor Mary Rowe describes these instances as “apparently small events which are often ephemeral and hard-to-prove, events which are covert, often unintentional, frequently unrecognized by the perpetrator.” But they create work environments which hold women back.

When senior women are scarce in an organization, a vicious cycle of  “second-generation” gender bias kicks in. Researchers describe this bias as barriers that “arise from cultural assumptions and organizational structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that [put] women at a disadvantage.” Fewer women leaders means fewer role models for would-be women leaders. On the flip side, when women who are early in their career see more women in senior leadership positions, it sends the message that they too belong in the C-suite.

The good news is that achieving diverse leadership teams is not just a moral imperative, it’s good for business too.

Having a diverse team creates a positive, virtuous cycle. Companies with women CEOs outperform the stock market, and companies with women on their boards outperform male-only boards by 26 percent. Researchers even estimate that transitioning from a single-gender office to an office evenly split between men and women be associated with a revenue gain of 41%.

png;base641eeb18ea3a296b8d resized 600

Not only do companies with more women in leadership yield better economic returns, recent research also suggests it helps mitigate risk. One study shows that each additional female director reduces the number of a company’s attempted takeover bids by 7.6%. Another study indicates that companies with more women on their board had fewer instances of governance-related scandals such as bribery, corruption, fraud, and shareholder battles.

Let’s get together and support one another.

Empower your colleagues to promote gender equality in the workplace. This month we challenge you to reach out to that mentor, manager, peer, or mentee with whom you’ve been meaning to connect with. Ask her to grab coffee and send us a picture by April 30 so we can share it on the XX in Health website!

Topics: women, gender, ceo, health, healthcare, hospitals, positions, digital health, gender discrimination, office

Stroke Centers 'Over An Hour Away' For One Third of Americans

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Fri, Mar 06, 2015 @ 11:05 AM

James McIntosh

sign for hospital emergency department resized 600

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

Topics: stroke, stroke center, health, nurse, nurses, doctors, health care, patients, hospitals, care

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Fri, Feb 13, 2015 @ 12:11 PM

Alana Massey

 

We asked the BuzzFeed Community to tell us what the most common misconceptions about nurses are. They had a lot to say.

We asked the BuzzFeed Community to tell us what the most common misconceptions about nurses are. They had a lot to say.
Getty Images/iStockphoto

1. First of all, “Why didn’t you just become a doctor? You’re too smart to be a nurse” is a rude thing to say.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
Wall Street Journal Live

Submitted by SadiaK.

2. And no, people can’t just apply for nursing licenses before being educated and rigorously trained.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
20th Century Fox

Submitted by jennah4377addc7.

3. Because nursing is not about wiping butts all day.

Because nursing is not about wiping butts all day.
Shironosov / Getty Images/iStockphoto

Submitted by MariliseB

4. And nurses are not just there for their ability to “nurture” and “mother” patients; they’re there to use science and critical thinking to save lives.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
PBS

Submitted by hellokitty914 and edwyer94.

5. Which is why it’s annoying when people think you’re always just following a doctor’s orders.

Which is why it's annoying when people think you're always just following a doctor's orders.
Getty Images/iStockphoto Dana Bartekoske

Submitted by oneloveyogi.

6. But you’d never know that from TV and movies, which almost never portray nurses accurately.

But you'd never know that from TV and movies, which almost never portray nurses accurately.
NBC / Getty Images

Submitted by angry penguin.

7. The reality is that doctors rely heavily on the knowledge and observations of nurses to make decisions about patient care.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
NBC

Submitted by lexia49c9c42e3.

8. And it is often the nurses who make life and death decisions.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses

Submitted by andreae41060b2b6.

9. Nurses are actually more like a doctor-social worker-respiratory therapist-pharmacist-phlebotomist-physiotherapist-receptionist-X-ray technician-transporter-housekeeper-caregiver hybrid.

Nurses are actually more like a doctor-social worker-respiratory therapist-pharmacist-phlebotomist-physiotherapist-receptionist-X-ray technician-transporter-housekeeper-caregiver hybrid.
ThinkStock

Submitted by oneloveyogi.

10. Which is probably why they’re not actually wearing sexy nurse outfits over lingerie with stilettos on their feet.

Which is probably why they're not actually wearing sexy nurse outfits over lingerie with stilettos on their feet.

Submitted by sandrafromparis.

11. That might also be because a huge number of nurses are men.

That might also be because a huge number of nurses are men.

Submitted by preciouskittenn.

12. Who, by the way, are not all gay.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
ABC

Submitted by richardd31.

So now that all that’s cleared up, there are a few more things that nurses don’t want or need to hear.

13. When nurses are “just taking blood pressure” they are simultaneously assessing a dozen things about a patient’s condition.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses

Submitted by shannooney.

14. It doesn’t help anyone to say that all nurses do is put on Band-Aids when they’re actually catching potentially fatal mistakes made by doctors who don’t know the patient as well.

It doesn't help anyone to say that all nurses do is put on Band-Aids when they're actually catching potentially fatal mistakes made by doctors who don't know the patient as well.
Fox

Submitted by betty.swiecka.

15. And when people assume a home health care nurse is there to give sponge baths and clean the house, it makes it harder for them to provide care.

And when people assume a home health care nurse is there to give sponge baths and clean the house, it makes it harder for them to provide care.
ThinkStock

Submitted by kimberly.riggs.18.

16. Saying nurses are so lucky to work three days a week ignores how much recovery time and rest is needed after long shifts and demanding work.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
1492 Pictures

Submitted by lydia.maria.94.

17. Patients with the “I write your check” mentality that feel justified using nurses as servants make it harder for nurses to do their jobs.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
Columbia Records / Via tumblr.com

Submitted by kelly.hilker.

18. That job is not being a personal drug dealer who is totally OK with going to jail just so a patient can get some OxyContin.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
United Artists

Submitted by nic0lie0lie and cheries4218b4a82.

19. So if you come in and say you’re allergic to every drug except Dilaudid and that you needs lots and lotsof Dilaudid, the nurse is onto you, buddy.

So if you come in and say you're allergic to every drug except Dilaudid and that you needs lots and lots of Dilaudid, the nurse is onto you, buddy.
Warner Bros.

Submitted by cheries4218b4a82.

20. And when a nurse clearly knows the answer to your question and you say, “Can you ask the doctor?” you’re undermining their expertise and their profession.

23 Things People Always Get Completely Wrong About Nurses
United Artists

Submitted by lalroma.

21. But the great thing about nurses is that they don’t actually care all that much about all these misconceptions.

But the great thing about nurses is that they don't actually care all that much about all these misconceptions.
ThinkStock

Submitted by jonathanr49e5c50fe.

22. Because the thing they care more about than anything is saving your life.

Because the thing they care more about than anything is saving your life.
ThinkStock

Submitted by jonathanr49e5c50fe.

23. But for those of us who are annoyed on their behalves, we are just going to leave this here.

But for those of us who are annoyed on their behalves, we are just going to leave this here.
BuzzFeed

Submitted by ashleym45a8b720b.

Source: www.buzzfeed.com

Topics: nursing, health, nurse, nurses, doctors, medical, patients, physicians, hospitals

Reasons Why Nurses Are Secretly Angels Living Among Us (Part 2)

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Wed, Jan 21, 2015 @ 11:17 AM

6. …but people still expect them to show up the second they ring the call bell.

...but people still expect them to show up the second they ring the call bell.

7. Sometimes they’re working so hard, they can go entire shifts without eating, drinking water, or sitting.

Lunch break? What’s that?

8. Ditto going to the bathroom.

9. Some patients will incessantly hit on them.

27 Reasons Why Nurses Are Secretly Angels Living Among Us

10. Others will expose themselves for no clear medical reason.

Others will expose themselves for no clear medical reason.
Flickr: eflon / Creative Commons / Via Flickr: eflon

“Your arm is broken… so why is your dick out?”

Source: www.buzzfeed.com

Topics: humor, health, healthcare, nurse, nurses, health care, medical, patients, medicine, treatment, hospitals, career

Can software predict the resistance of superbugs to new drugs?

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Mon, Jan 05, 2015 @ 11:35 AM

By Catharine Paddock PhD

scientist plays chess against superbug resized 600

The rise of drug-resistant bacteria - such as MRSA - is making it increasingly difficult to control even common infections like pneumonia or urinary tract infections with standard antibiotics. After repeated exposure, the bugs mutate into strains that are immune to the drugs that once killed them.

There is clearly a desperate need for new drugs to fight these superbugs. But there is also another option - to extend the useful life of a drug. Now, researchers have developed a computer algorithm that can help in this area.

Imagine the war against a superbug as a chess game, with each move that your opponent makes being a mutation in the superbug that makes it more drug-resistant. 

To stand a good chance of winning, it helps to anticipate your opponent's most likely counter-moves.

Now, a team of researchers - including members from Duke University in Durham, NC - has developed a computer algorithm that stands a good chance of beating a superbug at its own game.

The software - called OSPREY - predicts the most likely mutations that a bug develops in response to a new drug before the drug is even given to patients.

Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes how they tested OSPREY with the superbug MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). 

The researchers programmed the algorithm to identify the genetic changes that MRSA would have to undergo in order to become resistant to a promising new class of experimental drug. And when they exposed MRSA to the new drugs, they found some of the genetic changes the software had predicted actually arose.

"This gives us a window into the future to see what bacteria will do to evade drugs that we design before a drug is deployed," says author Bruce Donald, a professor of computer science and biochemistry at Duke.

The team hopes the approach they are developing will give drug designers a head start in the race against superbugs, as co-author and Duke graduate student Pablo Gainza-Cirauqui explains:

"If we can somehow predict how bacteria might respond to a particular drug ahead of time, we can change the drug, or plan for the next one, or rule out therapies that are unlikely to remain effective for long."

Resistant forms of Staphylococcus aureus now kill 11,000 people in the US every year - more than HIV. In 1975, around 2% of infections caused by the bacterium were resistant to treatment - rising to 29% in 1991 - and now the proportion is 55%.

Depending on the drug, it can take up to 20 years for resistant strains to emerge. Sometimes it only takes 1 year.

Ability to anticipate new mutations beats searching 'libraries' of known mutations

The team believes approaches like OSPREY beat the current method where scientists have to look up "libraries" of previously observed resistance mutations - an approach that is not necessarily satisfactory for predicting future mutations. Prof. Donald explains:

"With a new drug, there is always the possibility that the organism will develop different mutations that had never been seen before. This is what really worries physicians."

OSPREY - which stands for Open Source Protein REdesign for You - is based on a protein design algorithm. It identifies changes to DNA sequences in the bacteria that would enable the resulting protein to block the drug while still being able to work normally.

The team tested OSPREY with a new class of drugs called propargyl-linked antifolates that attack a bacterial enzyme called dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), used for building DNA and other tasks. The drugs - still to be tested in humans - are showing promise as a new treatment for MRSA infections.

Using OSPREY, the team came up with a ranked list of possible mutations. They picked out four - none of which had been seen before.

One predicted mutation reduced drug effectiveness by 58%

When they treated MRSA with the new drugs, they found more than half of the bacteria that survived carried the mutation they predicted would give the organism the greatest amount of resistance: a tiny change in the bacterial DNA that reduced the effectiveness of the new drugs by 58%.

"The fact that we actually found the new predicted mutations in bacteria is very exciting," Prof. Donald says, adding that the approach could be expanded to anticipate the bug's responses more than one move ahead:

"We might even be able to coax a pathogen into developing mutations that enable it to evade one drug, but that then make it particularly susceptible to a second drug, like a one-two punch."

The team is now enhancing OSPREY to predict resistance mutations to drugs designed to treat E. coli and Enterococcus infections.

They believe OSPREY will be useful for predicting drug resistance in cancer, HIV, flu and other diseases where culturing resistant strains is harder than it is with bacteria.

Prof. Donald and colleagues are developing OSPREY in open source format so it is freely available for any researcher to use.

In September 2014, Medical News Today learned about a study that showed how an  old drug may lead to a potential new class of antibiotics . The study showed that lamotrigine - currently used as an anticonvulsant - can inhibit the assembly of ribosomes in bacteria.

Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com

Topics: antibiotics, science, super bug, software, drug-resistant bacteria, MRSA, computer algorithum, OSPREY, health, healthcare, nurses, doctors, medicine, treatment, hospitals

America's 9 biggest health issues

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Mon, Jan 05, 2015 @ 11:20 AM

By Sanjay Gupta

110914125138 sanjay gupta  story top resized 600

After an incredibly busy 2014, during which health stories like Ebola, new food nutrition label rules, and the debate about the right to die sparked by Brittany Maynard dominated the headlines, it's now worth looking at what we may be covering in the next 12 months. 

So, in no particular order, here's my take on the nine big health stories to watch for, and the questions they will likely raise, in 2015.

Doctor shortage. There aren't nearly enough of us to care for the U.S. population. By some estimates, the country is already short of tens of thousands of doctors, a problem that will only get worse as the demand for care increases with our aging population. That could mean longer wait times for you when you need to make an appointment. But that also means policy makers will have to consider questions like: Is there a way to increase the number of residency training slots? Are there other health care professionals who can reasonably fill in the gaps? Will the nation's quality of care go down? How can the country avoid a situation where only the wealthy will be able to afford quality care? 

Hospital errors and infections. Hospital mistakes and infections are still one of the leading causes of preventable death (indeed, some studies suggest "hospital-acquired conditions" kill more people than car accidents or diabetes). 

True, a recent study showed the rate did get better this year, saving tens of thousands of lives. But what else can hospitals do to prevent these mistakes and infections? Can technology like e-prescriptions and electronic health records prevent problems that most often occur: the mistakes caregivers make with a patient's drugs? 

Antibiotic resistance. It has been called public health's "ticking time bomb."The World Health Organization calls antibiotic resistant infections one of the biggest threats to global health today. Each year, at least 2 million peoplebecome infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, and at least 23,000 people die each year. Most of these deaths happen in health care settings and in nursing homes. How can we respond? Well, research teams around the world have already started searching for the next generation of infection-fighting drugs. But it remains to be seen if time will run out, sending us back to the beginning: a time before antibiotics, where even a cut that becomes infected could kill you. 

More do-it-yourself health care: apps and technology. Technology has made do-it-yourself patient care much easier. This goes beyond just a patient's ability to look up their symptoms online. There are apps to help with autism, apps that can simulate a check-up, apps that can monitor conditions. Wearables can motivate you to walk more or sleep more or check a diabetic's glucose level. But how does all this helping yourself make your health care better? How much is too much? And what does this mean for your privacy? After all, the health care industry accounted for 43% of all major data breaches in 2013. Meanwhile, although 93% of health care data requires protection by law, some surveys suggest only 57% of it is "somewhat protected." What could this mean for your privacy and personal information if security doesn't get better? 

Food deserts. While not everyone agrees with the term food desert, the USDA still estimates 23.5 million people live in these urban neighborhoods and rural towns with limited access to fresh, affordable, healthy food. Without grocery stores in these areas, residents often have to rely on fast food and convenience stores that don't stock fresh produce. It takes a real toll on their health. Families who live in these areas struggle more with obesity and chronic conditions, and they even die sooner than people who live in neighborhoods with easy access to healthy food. More farmers markets are now accepting food stamps and many nonprofits have stepped in to try to bring community gardens and healthy food trucks to these areas, but so far it's not enough. Will cities offer incentives to grocery store chains to relocate to these neighborhoods?  How else can this system be helped? 

Caregivers for the aging population. We are heading into a kind of caregiver crisis. The number of people 65 years and older is expected to rise 101%between 2000 and 2030, yet the number of family members who can provide care for these older adults is only expected to rise 25%. This raises a series of related questions, not least who is going to step up to fill the gaps? Will cities that don't traditionally have strong public transportation systems add to their routes? Will developers create more mixed-use buildings to make shopping and socializing easier to access? Could the government create a kind of caregiver corps that could check in on the isolated elderly? Who will pay for this expensive kind of safety net? 

The cost of Alzheimer's. Currently about 5.2 million Americans have Alzheimer's. That number is expected to double every 20 years. With a cure some way off, what can be done to ease the emotional and financial burden on families and communities affected by the disease? The Alzheimer's Association predicts that by 2050, U.S. costs for care will total $1.2 trillion, making it the most expensive condition in the nation. How will we be able to afford the costs of caring for this population? What can the country do to achieve the goal the White House set for preventing and effectively treating Alzheimer's by 2025?

Marijuana. With the growing acceptance of weed, we can expect that more laws will change to allow medical and recreational use of marijuana. How will the rest of the laws in this country adjust? For instance, Washington state is coming up with a Breathalyzer-type device to check if drivers are high. But it will be interesting to see how readily available these devices are going to be. Will legalization improve the scientific understanding of the long-term consequences of the drug? What other uses could this drug have to help those who may need pain relief most?

Missing work-life balance. Americans spend more time on the job than most other developed countries. We don't get as much vacation, we don't take what vacation we have, and we are prone to working nights and weekends. This stress has a negative impact on Americans' health. What are companies doing to help? What technology can change this phenomenon? Will millennials who say work-life balance is a bigger priority than other generations rub off on the rest of us? What can we personally do to find a better balance? 

We may not be able to answer all these questions in 2015, but we sure will try. And the health team and I look forward to exploring these issues with you in the coming New Year.

Source: www.cnn.com

Topics: life, work, 2015, marijuana, New Year, doctor shortages, antiobiotic resistance, food deserts, caregivers, apps, technology, health, healthcare, nurse, doctors, population, Alzheimer's, medicine, treatment, hospitals, Americans

Global life expectancy has 'increased by 6 years since 1990'

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Mon, Dec 22, 2014 @ 01:15 PM

By David McNamee

globe resized 600

Between 1990 and 2013, global life expectancy increased by nearly 5.8 years in men and 6.6 years in women, according to a new analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 published in The Lancet.

"The progress we are seeing against a variety of illnesses and injuries is good, even remarkable, but we can and must do even better," says lead author Dr. Christopher Murray, professor of Global Health at the University of Washington. 

"The huge increase in collective action and funding given to the major infectious diseases such as diarrhea, measles, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria has had a real impact," he says. 

"However, this study shows that some major chronic diseases have been largely neglected but are rising in importance, particularly drug disorders, liver cirrhosis, diabetes and chronic kidney disease."

The analysis suggests that life expectancies in high-income regions have been increased due to falling death rates from most cancers - which are down by 15% - and cardiovascular diseases - which are down by 22%.

In low-income countries, rapidly declining death rates for diarrhea, lower respiratory tract infections and neonatal disorders have boosted life expectancy.

Despite the increases in global life expectancy by nearly 5.8 years in men and 6.6 years in women, some causes of death have seen increased rates of death since 1990.

These increased causes of death include:

  • Liver cancer caused by hepatitis C (up by 125%)
  • Atrial fibrillation and flutter (serious disorders of heart rhythm; up by 100%)
  • Drug use disorders (up by 63%)
  • Chronic kidney disease (up by 37%)
  • Sickle cell disorders (up by 29%)
  • Diabetes (up by 9%)
  • Pancreatic cancer (up by 7%).

HIV/AIDS has 'erased years of life expectancy' in sub-Saharan Africa

The report also points to one notable global region where life expectancy is not increasing. Deaths from HIV/AIDS have erased more than 5 years of life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa, say the authors. HIV/AIDS remains the greatest cause of premature death in 20 of the 48 sub-Saharan countries.

Since 1990, years of life worldwide lost due to HIV/AIDS is reported as having increased by 334%.

In Syria, war is the leading cause of premature death - the conflict caused an estimated 29,947 deaths in 2013, and up to 54,903 and 21,422 deaths in each of the preceding 2 years.

Countries that the authors consider to have made "exceptional gains in life expectancy" over the past 23 years include Nepal, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Niger, Maldives, Timor-Leste and Iran - where, for both sexes, life expectancy has increased by more than 12 years.

Life expectancy at birth in India increased from 57.3 years for men and 58.2 years for women in 1990 to 64.2 years and 68.5 years, respectively, in 2013. The authors say that India has made "remarkable progress" in reducing deaths, with the death rates for children dropping 1.3% per year for adults and 3.7% per year for children.

The report also welcomes dramatic drops in child deaths worldwide over the study period. In 1990, 7.6 million children aged 1-59 months died, but this death rate was down to 3.7 million by 2013.

Igor Rudan and Kit Yee Chan, from the Centre for Population Health Sciences and Global Health Academy at the University of Edinburgh Medical School in the UK, write in a linked comment:

"Estimates of the causes of the global burden of disease, disability, and death are important because they guide investment decisions that, in turn, save lives across the world.

Although WHO's team of experts have been doing fine technical work for many years, its monopoly in this field had removed incentives to invest more time and resources in continuous improvement [...] the competition between WHO and the GBD [Global Burden of Disease Study] has benefited the entire global health community, leading to converging estimates of the global causes of death that everyone can trust."

 

Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com

Topics: global, survival rates, life expectancy, lives, research, nurses, doctors, medical, cancer, medicine, diseases, death, treatment, hospitals, community

Why more adults are getting "kids' diseases"

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 @ 11:50 AM

By DENNIS THOMPSON

7uq5Lzv resized 600

Chickenpox befell Angelina Jolie this week, preventing the actress-turned-director from attending the premiere of her new film.

Meanwhile, an outbreak of mumps has hit the National Hockey League, sidelining more than a dozen players and two referees.

These are considered kids' diseases. Most adults have vivid, fretful childhood memories of standing in line to get vaccinations that they expected to provide lifetime protection.

Why, then, are these prominent adults -- and scores of others -- coming down with these infections?

Mainly, it comes down to two factors, experts say.

Vaccination rates have declined among children in some parts of the United States, increasing everyone's risk of exposure to virulent diseases like chickenpox, measles, mumps and whooping cough, said Dr. Aaron Glatt, a spokesman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

"These vaccines are not perfect," said Glatt, who's also executive vice president of Mercy Medical Center in Rockville Centre, N.Y. "If you don't have a perfect vaccine and you couple that with a less-than-ideal number of people getting it, then if one person gets it then it's more likely to spread to others."

On top of that, even adults who got their shots as kids are at risk of contracting these diseases once exposed to them, because the protection provided by childhood vaccinations can fade over time.

"You can be vaccinated for something and have antibodies that wane over time or disappear entirely," said Dr. Len Horovitz, an internist and lung specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "You can have intermittent immunity, or no immunity."

America's public health defense against infectious diseases is built on a concept called "herd immunity," Glatt explained. If enough people are vaccinated against diseases like chickenpox, influenza, mumps and whooping cough, then even those who aren't vaccinated benefit because those who are immune can't spread the disease.

Skepticism over the effectiveness and safety of vaccines has caused vaccine rates to decline in some parts of the country, Horovitz and Glatt said. In those locations, adults with waning or imperfect immunity could fall prey to childhood infectious diseases, particularly if there's an outbreak.

"There is less vaccination going on than there was previously," Glatt said. "These childhood diseases have not gone away, and there is a strong anti-vaccine lobby that plays a role in people's decision to have their children vaccinated."

Since the early 1980s, there has been an overall increasing trend of whooping cough in the United States, said Angela Jiles, a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 16 of this year, the CDC received reports of 17,325 cases of whooping cough, a 30 percent increase from the same time period in 2013 and the most cases seen in six decades, Jiles said.

California is experiencing its worst outbreak of whooping cough in seven decades.

There also have been more reported mumps cases in the United States this year, due to some larger outbreaks, according to the CDC. A reported 1,078 people have contracted mumps in 2014, compared with 438 the year before. In 2006 -- the worst year in recent history -- there were 6,584 cases of mumps, largely due to outbreaks on college campuses, according to the CDC.

No one has said how Jolie might have contracted chickenpox, but many of the NHL players appear to have gotten mumps from each other, despite efforts by the hockey league to get players vaccinated.

A single dose of mumps vaccine is about 80 percent effective, and two doses is about 90 percent effective, Amy Parker Fiebelkorn, an epidemiologist with the CDC's measles, mumps, rubella and polio team, told The New York Times.

"There is no vaccine that's 100 percent effective," Fiebelkorn said. "There is some margin for fully vaccinated individuals to still be infected with mumps if they're exposed to the virus."

Unfortunately, adults who contract these diseases are in for a rougher ride than children. They are more likely to develop serious complications, and are at higher risk of death, Glatt and Horovitz said.

These viruses also can increase a person's risk of future illness. For example, chickenpox patients like Jolie have a lifetime risk of shingles, a disease that can cause terrible rashes and intense nerve pain. The chickenpox virus hides in deep reservoirs inside the human body, and then emerges later in life to cause shingles.

Concerned adults can ask their doctor for a blood test that will check their antibodies and see if they remain immune to these infectious diseases, Horovitz said.

"It's something that could be done in the course of your annual exam. It takes no more than an extra tube or two of blood," the same as regular checks for blood sugar and cholesterol, he said. "It would be particularly important for people with chronic medical conditions or who do a lot of foreign travel where these diseases are running rampant."

People also can talk with their doctor about vaccinations that are recommended for adults. For example, the CDC recommends that adults get a booster shot every 10 years for tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, as well as an annual flu shot.

Source: www.cbsnews.com

Topics: measles, adults, mumps, shingles, chickenpox, whooping cough, infections, immunity, nurses, CDC, children, medical, vaccine, diseases, treatment, physicians, vaccinations, hospitals

Delayed cord clamping results in better immediate newborn outcomes

Posted by Erica Bettencourt

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 @ 11:35 AM

mother and newborn resized 600

At birth, a newborn baby is still attached to its mother through the umbilical cord, which is either cut very early - within the first 60 seconds - or later, with some women opting to wait until after the cord has stopped pulsating. Though the right timing for cutting the cord - also referred to as clamping - is widely debated, a new study suggests delaying cord clamping by 2 minutes results in better development for the newborn during the first days of life.

What do you think about it? Do you think the 2 minutes makes a difference? Perhaps you can share a personal and/or professional experience about this.

The research, carried out by scientists from the University of Granada and the San Cecilio Clinical Hospital in Spain, is published in the journal Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the reason that cord clamping timing is so controversial is that a previous series of studies into blood volume changes after birth concluded that in healthy term infants, more than 90% of blood volume was attained within the first few breaths he or she took after birth.

As a result of these findings, as well as a lack of other recommendations regarding optimal timing, the amount of time between birth and umbilical cord clamping was widely shortened; in most cases, cord clamping occurs within 15-20 seconds after birth.

However, before these studies, in the mid-1950s, cord clamping within 1 minute of birth was defined as "early clamping," and "late clamping" was defined as more than 5 minutes after birth. And the ACOG have stated that "the ideal timing for umbilical cord clamping has yet to be established."

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) advocate for late cord clamping (between 1-3 minutes after birth), as it "allows blood flow between the placenta and neonate to continue, which may improve iron status in the infant for up to 6 months after birth."

Waiting 2 minutes increased antioxidant capacity

To provide further evidence in the debate of early versus late cord clamping, the researchers from this latest study, led by Prof. Julio José Ochoa Herrera of the University of Granada, assessed newborn outcomes for infants born to 64 healthy pregnant women to determine the impact of clamping timing on oxidative stress and the inflammatory signal produced during delivery.

All of these women had a normal pregnancy and spontaneous vaginal delivery. However, half of the women's newborns had their umbilical cord cut 10 seconds after delivery and half had it cut after 2 minutes.

Results revealed beneficial effects of late cord clamping; there was an increase in antioxidant capacity and moderation of inflammatory effects in the newborns.

Commenting further, Prof. Ochoa says:


"Our study demonstrates that late clamping of the umbilical cord has a beneficial effect upon the antioxidant capacity and reduces the inflammatory signal induced during labor, which could improve the development of the newborn during his or her first days of life."

He adds that umbilical cord clamping is one of the most frequent surgical interventions practiced in humans, with proof of the practice dating back centuries. 

Early clamping 'not advised unless newborn needs resuscitation'

With evidence of benefits for delayed cord clamping, however, why are most newborns separated from the placenta within 15-20 seconds after birth? According to the ACOG, there are concerns over universally adopting delayed clamping because it could "jeopardize timely resuscitation efforts, if needed, especially in preterm infants."

"However," the organization states, "because the placenta continues to perform gas exchange after delivery, sick and preterm infants are likely to benefit most from additional blood volume derived from a delay in umbilical cord clamping."

There are also other concerns regarding delayed cord clamping, including an increased potential for "excessive placental transfusion, which can lead to neonatal polycythemia" - an abnormally high level of red blood cells. This is especially of concern in the presence of risk factors including maternal diabetes, intrauterine grown restriction and high altitude.

Another concern stated by the ACOG is that delayed umbilical cord clamping "may be technically difficult in some circumstances."

Still, the WHO say late cord clamping is recommended for all births, and the improved iron status associated with it "may be particularly relevant for infants living in low-resource settings with reduced access to iron-rich foods."

The organization clearly states that early cord clamping - less than 1 minute after birth - is not advised unless the newborn is asphyxiated and needs to be moved for resuscitation.

Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com

Topics: studies, WHO, birth, health, healthcare, nurses, medicine, physicians, hospitals, newborns, babies, cord clamping, umbilical cord, AAP

Recent Jobs

Article or Blog Submissions

If you are interested in submitting content for our Blog, please ensure it fits the criteria below:
  • Relevant information for Nurses
  • Does NOT promote a product
  • Informative about Diversity, Inclusion & Cultural Competence

Agreement to publish on our DiversityNursing.com Blog is at our sole discretion.

Thank you

Subscribe to Email our eNewsletter

Recent Posts

Posts by Topic

see all