The value and challenges of collegiality in practice

The ability to work optimally with colleagues is considered to be a valuable determinant of success, but collegiality is a challenge to assess. Could you be more collegial, and what might be the benefits and drawbacks for clinical practice? How could you be more collegial and foster more collegiality amongst those you work with? What is collegiality and what does it mean to be collegial? Collegiality can be defined as the relationship between individuals working towards a common purpose within an organisation. The concept has its origins in the roman practice of sharing responsibility equally between government officials of the same rank in order to prevent a single individual from gaining too much power. In contrast, managerialism does not provide opportunities for exploring democratic consensus because it promotes being responsive and obedient to implementing the wishes of authority (Dearlove, 1997, King, 2004). Collegiality emphasises trust, independent thinking and sharing between co-workers. This encourages both autonomy and mutual respect and can impact on organisational efficacy (Donohoo, 2017). In modern day practice, the focus is less on sharing responsibility between officials of the same rank and more on ensuring that all employees within an organisation are treated with equal respect as individual people (Lorenzen, 2006)

Drifters, Party Boys and Incumbents: The Life Patterns of Male Street-based Sex Workers

This paper is based on a qualitative study of male street-based prostitution. It suggests that the street-based sector is more varied, with sellers adopting a wider range of working practices, than is commonly acknowledged in the literature on male prostitution. Drawing on data from Manchester, England I identify a number of ‘life patterns’ among male street sellers that reflect varied working practices based on issues around rational decision-making and the sex worker’s relationship to place and environment. The discussion has implications for urban policies around street-based sex work but also for a more general understanding of male sex work in international and comparative perspective

Domain-specific versus generalized cognitive screening in acute stroke

Cognitive assessments after stroke are typically short form tests developed for dementia that generates pass/fail classifications (e.g. the MoCA). The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) provides a domain-specific cognitive profile designed for stroke survivors. This study compared the use of the MoCA and the OCS in acute stroke with respect to symptom specificity and aspects of clinical utility. A cross-sectional study with a consecutive sample of 200 stroke patients within 3 weeks of stroke completing MoCA and OCS. Demographic data, lesion side and Barthel scores were recorded. Inclusivity was assessed in terms of completion rates and reasons for non-completion were evaluated. The incidence of cognitive impairments on both the MoCA and OCS sub-domains was calculated and differences in stroke specificity, cognitive profiles and independence of the measures were addressed. The incidence of acute cognitive impairment was high: 76 % of patients were impaired on MoCA, and 86 % demonstrated at least one impairment on the cognitive domains assessed in the OCS. OCS was more sensitive than MoCA overall (87 vs 78 % sensitivity) and OCS alone provided domain-specific information on prevalent post-stroke cognitive impairments (neglect, apraxia and reading/writing ability). Unlike the MOCA, the OCS was not dominated by left hemisphere impairments but gave differentiated profiles across the contrasting domains. The OCS detects important cognitive deficits after stroke not assessed in the MoCA, it is inclusive for patients with aphasia and neglect and it is less confounded by co-occurring difficulties in these domains

Engaging patients, clinicians and health funders in weight management: the Counterweight Programme.

Background. The Counterweight Programme provides an evidence based and effective approach for weight management in routine primary care. Uptake of the programme has been variable for practices and patients. Aim. To explore key barriers and facilitators of practice and patient engagement in the Counterweight Programme and to describe key strategies used to address barriers in the wider implementation of this weight management programme in UK primary care. Methods. All seven weight management advisers participated in a focus group. In-depth interviews were conducted with purposeful samples of GPs (n = 7) and practice nurses (n = 15) from 11 practices out of the 65 participating in the programme. A total of 37 patients participated through a mixture of in-depth interviews (n = 18) and three focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were analysed for key themes that emerged. Results. Engagement of practice staff was influenced by clinicians beliefs and attitudes, factors relating to the way the programme was initiated and implemented, the programme content and organizational/contextual factors. Patient engagement was influenced by practice endorsement of the programme, clear understanding of programme goals, structured proactive follow-up and perception of positive outcomes. Conclusions. Having a clear understanding of programme goals and expectations, enhancing self-efficacy in weight management and providing proactive follow-up is important for engaging both practices and patients. The widespread integration of weight management programmes into routine primary care is likely to require supportive public policy

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial

Background: Transfusion thresholds for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding are controversial. So far, only three small, underpowered studies and one single-centre trial have been done. Findings from the single-centre trial showed reduced mortality with restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. We aimed to assess whether a multicentre, cluster randomised trial is a feasible method to substantiate or refute this finding. Methods: In this pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial, done in six university hospitals in the UK, we enrolled all patients aged 18 years or older with new presentations of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, irrespective of comorbidity, except for exsanguinating haemorrhage. We randomly assigned hospitals (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (random permuted block size of 6, without stratification or matching) to either a restrictive (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L) or liberal (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 100 g/L) RBC transfusion policy. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, protocol adherence, haemoglobin concentration, RBC exposure, selection bias, and information to guide design and economic evaluation of the phase 3 trial. Main exploratory clinical outcomes were further bleeding and mortality at day 28. We did analyses on all enrolled patients for whom an outcome was available. This trial is registered, ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532. Findings: Between Sept 3, 2012, and March 1, 2013, we enrolled 936 patients across six hospitals (403 patients in three hospitals with a restrictive policy and 533 patients in three hospitals with a liberal policy). Recruitment rate was significantly higher for the liberal than for the restrictive policy (62% vs 55%; p=0·04). Despite some baseline imbalances, Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% (SD 10) in the restrictive policy vs 83% (25) in the liberal policy (difference 14%; 95% CI 7–21; p=0·005). Mean last recorded haemoglobin concentration was 116 (SD 24) g/L for patients on the restrictive policy and 118 (20) g/L for those on the liberal policy (difference −2·0 [95% CI −12·0 to 7·0]; p=0·50). Fewer patients received RBCs on the restrictive policy than on the liberal policy (restrictive policy 133 [33%] vs liberal policy 247 [46%]; difference −12% [95% CI −35 to 11]; p=0·23), with fewer RBC units transfused (mean 1·2 [SD 2·1] vs 1·9 [2·8]; difference −0·7 [–1·6 to 0·3]; p=0·12), although these differences were not significant. We noted no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Interpretation: A cluster randomised design led to rapid recruitment, high protocol adherence, separation in degree of anaemia between groups, and non-significant reduction in RBC transfusion in the restrictive policy. A large cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is both feasible and essential before clinical practice guidelines change to recommend restrictive transfusion for all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Funding: NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development

Psychology and aggression

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68264/2/10.1177_002200275900300301.pd

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme