Eight year’s experience with automated anesthesia record keeping: Lessons learned—new directions taken

1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Abenstein ◽  
C. B. DeVos ◽  
Abel ◽  
S. Tarhan
2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia H Rowland ◽  
Lisa Gallicchio ◽  
Michelle Mollica ◽  
Nicole Saiontz ◽  
Angela L Falisi ◽  
...  

Abstract Federal investment in survivorship science has grown markedly since the National Cancer Institute’s creation of the Office of Cancer Survivorship in 1996. To describe the nature of this research, provide a benchmark, and map new directions for the future, a portfolio analysis of National Institutes of Health-wide survivorship grants was undertaken for fiscal year 2016. Applying survivorship-relevant terms, a search was conducted using the National Institutes of Health Information for Management, Planning, Analysis and Coordination grants database. Grants identified were reviewed for inclusion and categorized by grant mechanism used, funding agency, and principal investigator characteristics. Trained pairs of coders classified each grant by focus and design (observational vs interventional), population studied, and outcomes examined. A total of 215 survivorship grants were identified; 7 were excluded for lack of fit and 2 for nonresearch focus. Forty-one (19.7%) representing training grants (n = 38) or conference grants (n = 3) were not coded. Of the remaining 165 grants, most (88.5%) were funded by the National Cancer Institute; used the large, investigator-initiated (R01) mechanism (66.7%); focused on adult survivors alone (84.2%), often breast cancer survivors (47.3%); were observational in nature (57.3%); and addressed a broad array of topics, including psychosocial and physiologic outcomes, health behaviors, patterns of care, and economic/employment outcomes. Grants were led by investigators from diverse backgrounds, 28.4% of whom were early in their career. Present funding patterns, many stable since 2006, point to the need to expand research to include different cancer sites, greater ethnoculturally diverse samples, and older (>65 years) as well as longer-term (>5 years) survivors and address effects of newer therapies.


Author(s):  
Makoto Ozaki ◽  
Kyoko Ozaki ◽  
Kenji Atarashi ◽  
Chiharu Negishi ◽  
Masao Fujita

Author(s):  
M. A. ARMADA ◽  
T. AKINFIEV ◽  
R. FERNANDEZ ◽  
P. GONZÁLEZ DE SANTOS ◽  
E. GARCÍA ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Basmaji ◽  
Vincent Lau ◽  
Joyce Lam ◽  
Fran Priestap ◽  
Ian M Ball

Purpose To perform a narrative review of the literature regarding the discharge of patients directly to home (DDH) from the intensive care unit, and to identify patient characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with this practice. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1946 to present. We also manually searched the references of relevant articles. A two-step review process with three independent reviewers was used to identify relevant articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results Four studies were included in the final review. Two studies were retrospective and two studies were prospective that shared data from the same patient cohort. All were single center studies. Two of the four studies outlined clinical outcomes associated with DDH. Conclusions This study highlights the relative dearth in the literature regarding the increasingly common practice of DDH, underscores the importance of further studies in this area, and identifies future important foci of research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document