A multi-agency consensus panel examining synergies and differences between evidence-based approaches to violence reduction in England

Objective This purpose of this consensus conference was to determine whether surgical atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation during cardiac surgery improves clinical and resource outcomes compared with cardiac surgery alone in adults undergoing cardiac surgery for valve or coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of validity and importance. Evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing recommendations. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation. Results The consensus panel agreed on the following statements in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery concomitant surgical ablation: 1. Improves the achievement of sinus rhythm at discharge and 1 year (level A); this effect is sustained up to 5 years (level B). Does not reduce the use of antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months after surgery (level A; 36.0% vs. 45.4%), although trials were not designed to answer this question. 2. Does not increase the requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation (4.4% vs. 4.8%; level A). 3. Does not increase the risk of perioperative mortality (level A), stroke (level A), myocardial infarction (level B), cardiac tamponade (level A), reoperative bleeding (level A), esophageal injury (level B), low cardiac output (level A), intraaortic balloon (level B), congestive heart failure (level B), ejection fraction (EF; level B), pleural effusion (level A), pneumonia (level A), renal dysfunction (level B), and mediastinitis (level A). The incidence of esophageal injury remains to be low (level B). 4. Does not reduce mortality at 1 year (level A). There is a possible reduction in mortality beyond 1 year (level B), but no difference in stroke (level A), myocardial infarction (level A), and heart failure (level B). EF is increased (+4.1% more than control; level A). 5. Has been shown to improve exercise tolerance at 1 year (level A), but no impact on quality of life at 3 months and 1 year (level A); however, the methodology used and the number of trials studying these outcomes are insufficient. 6. Increases cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times (level A), with no difference in intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (level A). Overall costs were not reported. Conclusions Given these evidence-based statements, the consensus panel stated that, in patients with persistent and permanent AF undergoing cardiac surgery, concomitant surgical ablation is recommended to increase incidence of sinus rhythm at short- and long-term follow-up (class 1, level A); to reduce the risk of stroke and thromboembolic events (class 2a, level B); to improve EF (class 2a, level A); and to exercise tolerance (class 2a, level A) and long-term survival (class 2a, level B).

Download Full-text

Requirements for Infrastructure and Essential Activities of Infection Control and Epidemiology in Out-of-Hospital Settings: A Consensus Panel Report

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/501569 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 20 (10) ◽

pp. 695-705 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Candace Friedman ◽

Marcie Barnette ◽

Alfred S. Buck ◽

Rosemary Ham ◽

Jo-Ann Harris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Infection Control ◽

Health Care Workers ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Consensus Panel ◽

Critical Data ◽

Policies And Procedures ◽

Care Workers ◽

Healthcare Epidemiology ◽

And Training

AbstractIn 1997 the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America established a consensus panel to develop recommendations for optimal infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology programs in out-of-hospital settings. The following report represents the Consensus Panel's best assessment of requirements for a healthy and effective out-of-hospital-based infection control and epidemiology program. The recommendations fall into 5 categories: managing critical data and information; developing and recommending policies and procedures; intervening directly to prevent infections; educating and training of health care workers, patients, and nonmedical caregivers; and resources. The Consensus Panel used an evidence-based approach and categorized recommendations according to modifications of the scheme developed by the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Download Full-text

Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005

Innovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1097/01.gim.0000196315.32179.82 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 51-60 ◽

Cited By ~ 67

Author(s):

Keith Allen ◽

Davy Cheng ◽

William Cohn ◽

Mark Connolly ◽

James Edgerton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Coronary Artery ◽

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽

Consensus Statement ◽

Artery Bypass ◽

Class I ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Bypass Grafting ◽

Consensus Panel ◽

Harvest Technique ◽

Vein Harvesting

Objective This purpose of this consensus statement was to compare endoscopic vascular graft harvesting (EVH) with conventional open vascular harvesting (OVH) in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and to determine which resulted in improved clinical and resource outcomes. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of importance. Evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing statements. The AHA/ACC system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation. Results The consensus panel agreed upon the following statements: 1. EVH is recommended to reduce wound related complications when compared with OVH (Class I, Level A). 2. Based on quality of conduit harvested, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level B). 3. Based on major adverse cardiac events and angiographic patency at 6 months, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level A). 4. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to improve patient satisfaction and postoperative pain when compared with OVH in CABG surgery (Class I, Level A). 5. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to reduce postoperative length of stay and outpatient wound management resources (Class I, Level A). Conclusions Given these evidence-based statements, the consensus panel stated that EVH should be the standard of care for patients who require saphenous vein grafts for coronary revascularization (Class I, Level B). Future research should address long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and endoarterial harvest.

Download Full-text

Minimally Invasive versus Open Mitral Valve Surgery a Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery (ISMICS) 2010

Innovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1097/imi.0b013e318216be5c ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 66-76 ◽

Cited By ~ 85

Author(s):

Volkmar Falk ◽

Davy C. H. Cheng ◽

Janet Martin ◽

Anno Diegeler ◽

Thierry A. Folliguet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mitral Valve ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Mitral Valve Surgery ◽

Consensus Conference ◽

Valve Surgery ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Consensus Panel ◽

Level Of Evidence

Objective The purpose of this consensus conference was to deliberate the evidence regarding whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery via thoracotomy improves clinical and resource outcomes compared with conventional open mitral valve surgery via median sternotomy in adults who require surgical intervention for mitral valve disease. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence up to March 2010, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of validity and importance. The accompanying meta-analysis article in this issue of the Journal provides the systematic review of the evidence. Based on this systematic review, evidence-based statements were created for pre-specified clinical questions, and consensus processes were used to derive recommendations. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology system was used to label the level of evidence and class of each recommendation. Results and Conclusions Considering the underlying level of evidence, and notwithstanding the limitations of the evidence base (retrospective studies with important differences in baseline patient characteristics, which may produce bias in results of the evidence syntheses), the consensus panel provided the following evidence-based statements and overall recommendation: In patients with mitral valve disease, minimally invasive surgery may be an alternative to conventional mitral valve surgery (Class IIb), given that there was comparable short-term and long-term mortality (level B), comparable in-hospital morbidity (renal, pulmonary, cardiac complications, pain perception, and readmissions) (level B), reduced sternal complications, transfusions, postoperative atrial fibrillation, duration of ventilation, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (level B). However, this should be considered against the increased risk of stroke (2.1% vs 1.2%) (level B), aortic dissection (0.2% vs 0%) (level B), phrenic nerve palsy (3% vs 0%) (level B), groin infections/complications (2% vs 0%) (level B), and, prolonged cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and procedure time (level B). The available evidence consists almost entirely of observational studies and must not be considered definitive until future adequately controlled randomized trials further address the risk of stroke, aortic complications, phrenic nerve complications, pain, long-term survival, need for reintervention, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

Download Full-text

Abstraction: An alternative neurocognitive account of recognition, prediction, and decision making

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x19003017 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 43 ◽

Author(s):

Valerie F. Reyna ◽

David A. Broniatowski

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Software Engineering ◽

Systems Engineering ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Extensive Literature ◽

Trace Theory ◽

Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽

Abstract Representations ◽

Technical Systems

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.

Download Full-text

Misophonia: An Evidence-Based Case Report

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2020_aja-19-00111 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 685-690

Author(s):

C. S. Vanaja ◽

Miriam Soni Abigail

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Case Report ◽

Case History ◽

Pure Tone ◽

Physiological Responses ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Management Option ◽

Pure Tone Audiogram

Purpose Misophonia is a sound tolerance disorder condition in certain sounds that trigger intense emotional or physiological responses. While some persons may experience misophonia, a few patients suffer from misophonia. However, there is a dearth of literature on audiological assessment and management of persons with misophonia. The purpose of this report is to discuss the assessment of misophonia and highlight the management option that helped a patient with misophonia. Method A case study of a 26-year-old woman with the complaint of decreased tolerance to specific sounds affecting quality of life is reported. Audiological assessment differentiated misophonia from hyperacusis. Management included retraining counseling as well as desensitization and habituation therapy based on the principles described by P. J. Jastreboff and Jastreboff (2014). A misophonia questionnaire was administered at regular intervals to monitor the effectiveness of therapy. Results A detailed case history and audiological evaluations including pure-tone audiogram and Johnson Hyperacusis Index revealed the presence of misophonia. The patient benefitted from intervention, and the scores of the misophonia questionnaire indicated a decrease in the severity of the problem. Conclusions It is important to differentially diagnose misophonia and hyperacusis in persons with sound tolerance disorders. Retraining counseling as well as desensitization and habituation therapy can help patients who suffer from misophonia.

Download Full-text

January Forum: Evidence-Based Practices and Outcomes for Children With Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss

Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools ◽

10.1044/2019_jan2020lshssannouncement ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-1

Keyword(s):

Hearing Loss ◽

Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Evidence Based Practices ◽

Outcomes For Children

Download Full-text

Meeting the Best Practice for Hearing Aid Verification in Children: Challenges and Future Directions

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2019_aja-18-0156 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 877-894

Author(s):

Nur Azyani Amri ◽

Tian Kar Quar ◽

Foong Yen Chong

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Best Practice ◽

Hearing Aid ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Future Directions ◽

Major Barrier ◽

Klang Valley ◽

Age Range ◽

Fitting Hearing Aids

Purpose This study examined the current pediatric amplification practice with an emphasis on hearing aid verification using probe microphone measurement (PMM), among audiologists in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Frequency of practice, access to PMM system, practiced protocols, barriers, and perception toward the benefits of PMM were identified through a survey. Method A questionnaire was distributed to and filled in by the audiologists who provided pediatric amplification service in Klang Valley, Malaysia. One hundred eight ( N = 108) audiologists, composed of 90.3% women and 9.7% men (age range: 23–48 years), participated in the survey. Results PMM was not a clinical routine practiced by a majority of the audiologists, despite its recognition as the best clinical practice that should be incorporated into protocols for fitting hearing aids in children. Variations in practice existed warranting further steps to improve the current practice for children with hearing impairment. The lack of access to PMM equipment was 1 major barrier for the audiologists to practice real-ear verification. Practitioners' characteristics such as time constraints, low confidence, and knowledge levels were also identified as barriers that impede the uptake of the evidence-based practice. Conclusions The implementation of PMM in clinical practice remains a challenge to the audiology profession. A knowledge-transfer approach that takes into consideration the barriers and involves effective collaboration or engagement between the knowledge providers and potential stakeholders is required to promote the clinical application of evidence-based best practice.

Download Full-text

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2019_ajslp-19-00171 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (2) ◽

pp. 688-704

Author(s):

Katrina Fulcher-Rood ◽

Anny Castilla-Earls ◽

Jeff Higginbotham

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Clinical Expertise ◽

Speech Language Pathologists ◽

School Based ◽

Research Findings ◽

Ebp Implementation

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

Download Full-text

Current Issues: Evidence-Based Practice for the Real World: Thoughts on Clinical Education in Communication Disorders

Perspectives on Administration and Supervision ◽

10.1044/aas20.3.100 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 100-105 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Anne K. Bothe

Keyword(s):

Clinical Education ◽

Real World ◽

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Communication Disorders ◽

University Faculty ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Basic Principles ◽

The Real ◽

Language Pathology

This article presents some streamlined and intentionally oversimplified ideas about educating future communication disorders professionals to use some of the most basic principles of evidence-based practice. Working from a popular five-step approach, modifications are suggested that may make the ideas more accessible, and therefore more useful, for university faculty, other supervisors, and future professionals in speech-language pathology, audiology, and related fields.

Download Full-text