June 7th, 2009 by Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, M.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
If we had a power outage for a really, really long time, how would you fare? Really…could you go a really, really long time with out your computer, TV, cell phone over, say, your refrigerator? If you had access to a super powered generator what would you turn on? In other words, what would you find “essential” – things like refrigerators, the stove and perhaps a light or two…or technology.
A recent article in USA Today is quite illuminating. It turns out that many people, adult people, are so hooked on technology that in the case of a massive power outage they would actually put their lives and those of their kids at huge risk by turning on things like video games over truly essential items like lights and a refrigerator by running the games in a closed garage.
The USA Today article points out the highlights of a new study in this month’s Pediatrics about the dangers of gas-powered generators. The study notes that after Hurricane Ike, an ER in Houston treated 37 people from gas-generator-related carbon monoxide poisoning. Of those people, 54% were under the age of 18 and 75% of this group were playing video games.
This study highlights that our sense of “what is essential” has become skewed towards all that is plugged in. If our kids can not deal without technology for a bit, if we can not deal without technology for a bit, it’s time we took a collective big step back and realized that we actually can. It will feel strange and foreign for a day or so but life will go on because our “essentials”…food, shelter, oxygen, family…are met.
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Gwenn Is In*
June 6th, 2009 by Berci in Better Health Network
No Comments »
Who has never heard about Jay Parkinson, founder of HelloHealth service, the first online medical practice? Now please meet Dr. Hodge, the first iPhone doctor.
Hodge’s start-up Personal Pediatrics aims to equip a fleet of self-starter pediatricians in major metro areas with iPhones, cloud-based practice software and the marketing know-how to court new parents, families and corporate health programs alike. The company’s plan points to a growing trend of doctors returning to what was once a mainstay of the profession: the house call.
Hodge has already established that the iPhone doctor model works — after more than a decade working in a pediatrics office in St. Louis, Missouri, where she saw up to 35 patients a day for about 10 minutes each, Hodge traded in the patient assembly line to launch Personal Pediatrics. That was three years ago. Back then she had her laptop and Palm Treo in tow.
I have to mention one thing first. The whole health 2.0 movement is not about transforming the healthcare system into an online service, but there are more and more people who want to reach healthcare services through online or mobile applications.
If there are no patients who want to be online, no doctors will build such services. That’s how it works.
*This blog post was originally published at ScienceRoll*
June 6th, 2009 by eDocAmerica in Better Health Network
4 Comments »
One of the reasons eDocAmerica exists is to empower patients to take more control of their own health care. A wonderful group of people, patient advocates, physicians and other professionals alike have created a broad platform for this “e patient” movement, called Participatory Medicine. This group was originally assembled by Tom Ferguson, MD, an esteemed colleague who died after a courageous battele with Multiple Myeloma, and has since continued to meet. They created an excellent blog site, e-Patients.net that anyone who is interested in this subject should visit regularly.
Participatory medicine is a cooperative model of health care that encourages and expects active involvement by all connected parties (healthcare professionals, patients, caregivers, etc.) as integral to the full continuum of care. The ‘participatory’ concept may also be applied to fitness, nutrition, mental health, end-of-life care, and all issues broadly related to an individual’s health. This group is forming a society, the Society of Participatory Medicine and, soon, there will be a web site where interested parties can join and “participate” in the discussion. The society’s first president is Alan Greene, MD, author of popular Pediatric website Dr.Greene.com. In addition, the Society is founding a new journal, the Journal of Participatory Medicine. The Journal will bring together the best available evidence and examples of participatory medicine to:
a) Make a robust case for its value to people – sick or well –, advocates, and health professionals
b) Serve as a meeting place and rallying point for those at the leading edge of participatory medicine
c) Engage, inform and include those who have been involved in, or practicing, participatory medicine. We aim to advance both the science and practice.
The mission of the Journal is to transform the culture of medicine to be more participatory; and we believe that doing so, as the saying goes, will take a village – perhaps even a large metropolitan area! JPM constitutes a major investment of time and talent in community development. The journal will be entirely electronic, using the Open Journal System platform of online publishing. Yours truly, along with Jessie Gruman, the founder and president of the Center for Advancing Health (CFAH), an independent, nonpartisan Washington-based policy institute funded by the Annenberg Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and other foundations, will serve as Co-Editors in Chief of this new journal. We expect to publish our first issue of the Journal sometime in the fall of this year.
This is an exciting group of talented, engaged people who have the capacity to create something that will make a major difference in our health care system. eDocAmerica has a powerful collaborative opportunity here to participate with other key individuals and groups to help change health care!
Your comments and opinions are always welcome…
*This blog post was originally published at eDocAmerica*
June 5th, 2009 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) currently recommends that children 6 month to 18 years old receive an annual flu vaccine. There are two types of flu vaccines used in the US: a live attenuated virus (LAIV) and a trivalent inactivated virus (TIV) vaccine. Both are safe and effective – while efficacy varies from year to year, they are 70-90% effective in healthy adults. Efficacy is young children appears to be slightly less, about 66%.
There remains, however, many sub-questions about the flu vaccines and by the time researchers have thoroughly explored them vaccine technology is likely to have progressed, and therefore any new vaccines will have to be tested all over again.
One of those sub-questions about vaccine safety and efficacy is the net effect of the flu vaccine in children with asthma. Some have raised concerns that the vaccine may exacerbate asthma, a 1-2% increased wheezing and 3% increased hospitalizations have been reported, although so far the bulk of the data suggests that both types of flu vaccines are safe in children with asthma. There is evidence to suggest that the LAIV may be superior to the TIV in children, particularly with asthma.
A new study, presented but not published, further explores the safety and efficacy of the TIV in children. Study author, Avni Joshi, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic, reports:
“The concerns that vaccination maybe associated with asthma exacerbations have been disproved with multiple studies in the past, but the vaccine’s effectiveness has not been well-established. This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the TIV in children overall, as well as the children with asthma, to prevent influenza-related hospitalization.”
The study is a retrospective study of 263 children who presented to the Mayo clinic with laboratory confirmed influenza. They found that children who had recieved the TIV vaccine had a 3 times greater risk of hospitalization than those who were not vaccinated. These results raise concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the TIV in children with asthma.
Dr. Joshi concludes:
“While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not in fact implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations. More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects.”
That may seem like a curious conclusion given the results of this study, but it is accurate. The key to understanding the implications of this study is that it is retrospective. That means it looks at children who have the flu and then looks back to see who was vaccinated and who wasn’t. This in turn means that children were not randomized to either be vaccinated or not, and this opens the door to any number of variables that cannot be controlled for in the study.
The authors did look as obvious factors, such as severity of asthma and insurance status, and found that they did not correlate with risk of being hospitalized. But what other factors might there be? The flu vaccine is optional, which means that parents decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, perhaps with advice from their pediatrician. It is likely that sicker or more frail children are more likely to get vaccinated. It is also likely that children who had a bad reaction to the flu in the past are more likely to get vaccinated. The flu vaccine is recommended especially for those who are at high risk for complications if they get the flu.
Therefore while this study raises important questions, it is not designed to answer them definitively. A prospective trial is required for that, and that is what Joshi means by “more studies are needed.” In general, retrospective studies are useful to find correlations and generate hypothesis, but are not capable of determining causation – there are simply too many variables that are not controlled for.
As expected, the anti-vaccinationists have already jumped on this study and misinterpreted its significance. They did not recognize its retrospective nature nor put it into the context of existing research on the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccines.
Clinical trials are complex, and there are many types that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Often, many independent lines of basic science and clinical evidence need to be brought together to form a reliable conclusion about a specific intervention. That is the essence of science-based medicine. Individual studies typically only provide a tiny slice of information, but are often presented to the public as if they are definitive. This creates a constant background noise of misinformation about medical questions.
It also provides a rich source of data from which to cherry pick, allowing proponents to support almost any notion by shopping from the vast store of often conflicting medical research. This reinforces the need to look thoroughly at the totality of scientific evidence on any claim or question.
When that is done on the question of the flu vaccines, it is clear that both types of vaccines are safe and effective. However, there is also much room for improvement in the vaccine technology itself, as well as evidence-based recommendations for who, exactly, should get which type of vaccine.
This current study adds incrementally to our knowledge on this question, and suggests questions for future research. It is not the kind of evidence, however, that should lead to changes in the current recommendations.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
June 5th, 2009 by MotherJonesRN in Better Health Network
No Comments »
I wrote this post a long time ago when I first started blogging. I’m recycling the post because this information bears repeating. I’ve been seeing some behavior lately that is inappropriate, and I’m telling you this stuff for your own good. Please, never roll your eyes at a nurse who is old enough to be your mother. She may be going through menopause, and it could be the last thing that you ever do. Just sayin.’ Don’t make waves at the nurses station.
I worked as a neurosurgical nurse many years ago at a teaching hospital in the Midwest, and twice a year a new crop of interns descended upon our unit. It was the best show in town. The spectacle began with the chief of neurosurgery, Dr. Holier Than Thou, strutting on to the unit with his entourage marching behind him. He stood before the crowd in his impeccable white lab coat, telling everyone within earshot of his importance, and how he held the power of life and death in his hands. I would sit at the nurses station and snicker at the biannual parade, and remembered my first day in the hospital as a nursing student. Two interns had asked me to go into a patient’s room to get a set vitals signs. They didn’t tell me that the patient was cold, stone dead. I walked into the patient’s room, saw the dearly departed, and calmly walked back to the nurses station to find the interns laughing their fannies off. I told them they were going to make damn good doctors one day, but first they had to learn what rigor mortis looked like. Nonetheless, because every new group of interns looked like lambs being lead to slaughter, I pitied them, and I gave them information to use as a survival guide. These are the rules I taught them about working with nurses.
1) Nurses deserve respect. We are with the patients twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, while doctors are only able to see patients a few minutes a day. Smart interns forge alliances with the nursing staff, and understand that nurses can save their butts when something goes wrong with one of their patients.
2) Don’t take the last piece of pizza in the nurses lounge unless you are invited to do so. Nurses are territorial about food.
3) Nurses do not tolerate interns with a budding God complex. Nurses have no problem calling arrogant interns every hour on the hour for Tylenol orders, especially at night. Arrogance breeds contempt.
4) Don’t be stupid. If you want to complain about nursing care, be careful when you approach a nurse who is working the last half of a double shift. Refer to rule #3.
5) Nurses are your friends. We want to see you succeed, and if we like you, we will make sure that Dr. Holier Than Thou doesn’t find out that you order Demerol 1000 mg, instead of 100 mg, IM q 4 hours PRN because you were dead on your feet after being on call for three days in a row.
*This blog post was originally published at Nurse Ratched's Place*
