“Non-drug techniques reduce pain in hospitalized patients (Science Daily)” plus 3 more |
- Non-drug techniques reduce pain in hospitalized patients (Science Daily)
- Non-drug techniques reduce pain in hospitalized patients (EurekAlert!)
- COMMENTARY: It’s time for the FWC to tell the truth about its flawed tarpon study (The Boca Beacon)
- Freezing Technique May Stop Breast Cancer (HealthDay via Yahoo! News)
| Non-drug techniques reduce pain in hospitalized patients (Science Daily) Posted: 05 Mar 2010 03:20 PM PST ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2010) — Non-traditional therapies relieve pain among a wide range of hospitalized patients as much as 50 percent, according to a first-of-a-kind study in the Journal of Patient Safety. The study shows that an inpatient integrative medicine program can have a significant impact on pain in an environment where pain management continues to be a major challenge, and traditional medications can have negative consequences. "Roughly 80 percent of patients report moderate to severe pain levels after surgery," says Gregory Plotnikoff, M.D., one of the study's authors and medical director of the Penny George Institute for Health and Healing at Abbott Northwestern Hospital. "We struggle to provide effective pain control while trying to avoid the adverse effects of opioid medications, such as respiratory depression, nausea, constipation, dizziness and falls." The study included 1,837 cardiovascular, medical, surgical, orthopedics, spine, rehabilitation, oncology, and women's health patients at Abbott Northwestern between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. They scored their pain verbally on a zero-to-ten scale before and after treatments. The treatments included non-pharmaceutical services: mind body therapies to elicit the relaxation response, acupuncture, acupressure, massage therapy, healing touch, music therapy, aromatherapy, and reflexology. The study was published March 5 in the Journal of Patient Safety. "Earlier studies narrowly focused on whether specific integrative therapies manage pain in either cancer or surgical patients," says Jeffery A. Dusek, Ph.D., research director for the George Institute. "Our real-world study broadly shows that these therapies effectively reduce pain by over 50 percent across numerous patient populations. Furthermore, they can be clinically implemented in real time, across, and under the operational and financial constraints within an acute care hospital." Dusek says future research will focus on defining appropriate intervention doses, duration of pain relief, and developing profiles of which patients are most likely to respond to nonpharmacologic treatments. Reductions in total hospitalization costs, medication use and adverse events will be quantified in future prospective research using the electronic medical record. "I think we will find that integrative approaches to pain management during the hospital stay will improve patient satisfaction and outcomes, and we will see cost savings from patients using fewer drugs and experiencing fewer adverse events," said Lori Knutson, RN, BSN, HN-BC, executive director of the George Institute. The George Institute's inpatient program employs 21 integrative medicine practitioners, including six registered nurses, board-certified in their specialty areas such as oncology and cardiovascular, and also board-certified in holistic nursing; six licensed Asian medicine practitioners; eight certified massage therapists, with an emphasis on acute care massage, and one certified music therapist. Inpatient integrative services provided to patients are based on physician and nursing referrals, are supported by philanthropy and provided at no additional cost to the patient. Story Source: Adapted from materials provided by Allina Hospitals & Clinics. Journal Reference:
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Non-drug techniques reduce pain in hospitalized patients (EurekAlert!) Posted: 05 Mar 2010 12:42 PM PST ![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](http://www.eurekalert.org/images/back2e.gif){kind=small} Public release date: 5-Mar-2010[ | E-mail |  Share ] Contact: Gloria O'Connell Non-traditional therapies relieve pain among a wide range of hospitalized patients as much as 50 percent, according to a first-of-a-kind study in the Journal of Patient Safety. The study shows that an inpatient integrative medicine program can have a significant impact on pain in an environment where pain management continues to be a major challenge, and traditional medications can have negative consequences. "Roughly 80 percent of patients report moderate to severe pain levels after surgery," says Gregory Plotnikoff, M.D., one of the study's authors and medical director of the Penny George Institute for Health and Healing at Abbott Northwestern Hospital. "We struggle to provide effective pain control while trying to avoid the adverse effects of opioid medications, such as respiratory depression, nausea, constipation, dizziness and falls." The study included 1,837 cardiovascular, medical, surgical, orthopedics, spine, rehabilitation, oncology, and women's health patients at Abbott Northwestern between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. They scored their pain verbally on a zero-to-ten scale before and after treatments. The treatments included non-pharmaceutical services: mind body therapies to elicit the relaxation response, acupuncture, acupressure, massage therapy, healing touch, music therapy, aromatherapy, and reflexology. The study, "The Impact of Integrative Medicine on Pain Management in a Tertiary Care Hospital" was published March 5 in the Journal of Patient Safety. "Earlier studies narrowly focused on whether specific integrative therapies manage pain in either cancer or surgical patients," says Jeffery A. Dusek, Ph.D., research director for the George Institute. "Our real-world study broadly shows that these therapies effectively reduce pain by over 50 percent across numerous patient populations. Furthermore, they can be clinically implemented in real time, across, and under the operational and financial constraints within an acute care hospital." Dusek says future research will focus on defining appropriate intervention doses, duration of pain relief, and developing profiles of which patients are most likely to respond to nonpharmacologic treatments. Reductions in total hospitalization costs, medication use and adverse events will be quantified in future prospective research using the electronic medical record. "I think we will find that integrative approaches to pain management during the hospital stay will improve patient satisfaction and outcomes, and we will see cost savings from patients using fewer drugs and experiencing fewer adverse events," said Lori Knutson, RN, BSN, HN-BC, executive director of the George Institute. The George Institute's inpatient program employs 21 integrative medicine practitioners, including six registered nurses, board-certified in their specialty areas such as oncology and cardiovascular, and also board-certified in holistic nursing; six licensed Asian medicine practitioners; eight certified massage therapists, with an emphasis on acute care massage, and one certified music therapist. Inpatient integrative services provided to patients are based on physician and nursing referrals, are supported by philanthropy and provided at no additional cost to the patient. More about Abbott Northwestern Hospital's Penny George Institute for Health and Healing The Penny George Institute for Health and Healing, the nation's largest hospital-based integrative medicine program, provides a range of services in both the inpatient and outpatient environments, including such therapies as acupuncture, biofeedback, music therapy, nutrition consultations and massage therapy. The George Institute also conducts leading-edge research and education programs. Abbott Northwestern Hospital is part of Allina Hospitals & Clinics, a not-for-profit network of hospitals, clinics and other health care services throughout Minnesota and western Wisconsin. More information can be found at allina.com. [ | E-mail | Share ]
Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| COMMENTARY: It’s time for the FWC to tell the truth about its flawed tarpon study (The Boca Beacon) Posted: 05 Mar 2010 09:22 AM PST BY GARY DUTERY - During the 2002-2004 tarpon fishing seasons, researchers with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission conducted a tarpon mortality study in Boca Grande Pass. This study has been used and abused by the jig fishing community to create an invented validation of the drive-by carnage they and their motorized surfboards have left in their wake as another tarpon season approaches. It's a complicated issue. But let's see if we can make it simple. So simple that the jig guides and the FWC might see what's really going on. The rest of you can tag along for the ride. The Boca Grande Fishing Guides Association has petitioned the courts and the FWC to have the tarpon jig recognized as a snagging device. The argument is simple. The jig, and the techniques used to fish the jig, are designed to snag tarpon. Whether intentionally or inadvertently. It doesn't matter. Not to us. And certainly not to the tarpon. Snagging tarpon is, by FWC regulation, illegal. Because the jig is a snagging device, the guides argue, those who use it – regardless of their intentions – are illegally snagging tarpon. Most proponents of the tarpon jig see the device as an alternative method of fishing Boca Grande Pass. They do not see it as a snagging device. We know they do not set out to snag tarpon. Most of them. But this is what is happening. And an objective look at the FWC study – a project that began with what we thought were the best of intentions but collapsed under pressure from the jig community – should lead most, if not all, jig proponents to take a really good, hard, second look at what they are doing to one of Florida's most valuable fisheries. To understand the tarpon study is to recognize that the researchers who conducted the study, and their bosses within the FWC bureaucracy, reluctantly prostituted themselves to political and personal pressures to ignore the data and fabricate conclusions of convenience. The FWC scammed you out of countless thousands of dollars of research money by trashing the results of this multi-year study, and resorting to pretzel logic to abdicate its own common-sense findings and create a make-believe fishery where snagged tarpon aren't snagged and dead tarpon aren't dead. It's been six years since the study's "summary report" was released. Calling it a joke wouldn't do it justice. Not six years ago, not today. The Summary Report can be read online at BocaBeacon.com. Here is what the study found. And what it didn't find. Of the 138 tarpon hooked using the break-away jig, just 30 percent (41 fish) were brought to the boat. This means that 70 percent of the tarpon hooked by jiggers on their light tackle broke off. By comparison, nearly half (48 percent, or 44 fish) of those hooked using live bait methods were brought to the boat. Live baiters use heavy Dacron line. A break-off most commonly results from a spit hook, not a broken line. The distinction is important. The number of fish landed per hour using live bait was three times that of fish landed per hour by anglers using the break-away jig. The key word – not explained in the report – is "landed." Sure, jig guides will hook you up. You get 15 or 20 seconds worth of excitement before that butt-hooked tarpon breaks off. But if you actually want to see your tarpon, take a photo of the fish, the FWC says you are three times more likely to bring a tarpon to the boat fishing live bait. Live bait anglers averaged just 11 minutes to bring their tarpon to the boat. For jiggers, fight times were more than double, an average of 26 minutes – with the longest break-away jig fight lasting 1 hour and 38 minutes. Science tells us that if you spend less time fighting a tarpon, its chances of survival improve substantially. But who needs science? Common sense tells us that if you spend less time fighting a tarpon, its chances of survival improve substantially. The FWC never bothered to explore why jiggers, on average, take twice as long to boat a fish than live baiters. Probably wasn't all that important. Not when you have a political agenda to advance. And the FWC clearly had an agenda to advance. Read on. For tarpon caught on the jig, the confirmed mortality rate was 13.6 percent. It was just 5.3 percent for tarpon caught using live bait methods and tackle. The FWC found that using the jig kills more than twice as many fish compared to live bait methods. To the average American who doesn't understand FWC politics, this would seem pretty significant. But not to the FWC. Wonder why? Foul hooking? Of the 47 fish caught by those using the jig, five were "defined" as foul-hooked. That's 10 percent. Four of these fish were hooked in the head. One tarpon was hooked in the tail. Yeah, the tail. There were 32 fish caught using live bait. None were foul hooked. One more time. The FWC says 32 fish were caught using live bait. None, repeat, none were foul hooked. That's none. As in zero. Zilch. Nada. Yet five, under the FWC's generous definition of foul-hooked, were snagged. Snatched. Harpooned. Caught in an unsportsmanlike fashion. Did we mention that no live-bait fish were foul hooked? Kind of makes you wonder why? Unless, that is, you are the FWC. The study found that live bait methods result in more tarpon brought to the boat, more fish caught per hour, fewer dead tarpon and no foul-hooked tarpon. End of argument. Right? Well, not exactly. Not if you are the FWC. There is always an explanation for everything. Especially when politics demand an explanation. The FWC sought to explain away the inconvenient results of its own study by concluding "fundamental differences in the two fishing methods make it difficult to compare them, and results must be interpreted in that light." Hello? The "fundamental differences" between jigging and live bait fishing were clearly obvious to anyone with a pulse prior to the study. Why, if these differences make it "difficult to compare them," did the FWC spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to conduct a study to compare them? Obviously, unless the FWC is prepared to admit that the agency is populated by idiots, the "difficulty" only seemingly emerged once the results were in. And the results, clearly, weren't what the FWC wanted. The FWC wanted a study that was inconclusive. One that would give the FWC political wiggle room. Instead, the FWC came back with raw data that showed that live-bait techniques trumped jig-snag fishing. Not what the FWC wanted to hear. Not what the political hacks at the FWC could tolerate hearing. And certainly, not what they had custom-ordered. The FWC study also concluded that "no significant differences were observed in catch-and-release mortality rates of tarpon caught by anglers using artificial jigs and live bait in Boca Grande Pass." More than double isn't significant? The jig killed twice as many tarpon as live bait. Not significant? Multiply this by the number of tarpon that are caught in Boca Grande Pass every year. Yeah, it's significant. The FWC noted that sharks were responsible for all confirmed mortalities, and that they took place "using both methods of fishing." Translation: The chance of a jig-hooked tarpon being attacked by a shark is more than twice that of a tarpon caught using live bait methods. Did the FWC researcher ever consider why? Maybe if you jig-fight a fish for 90 minutes using dental floss as tackle, you might as well harvest the thing and cut it up for chum to feed to the sharks. And finally, the FWC concluded that "while more tarpon were foul-hooked using artificial bait than live bait, percentages were not unusually high and did not contribute negatively to the survival of tarpon." Stop laughing. Really. This is serious stuff. Let's say this another way: "More tarpon were foul-hooked using artificial bait than live bait." Or "no fish were foul-hooked using live bait." But here's where the cover-your-butt politics kick in. Prior to the release of the FWC's findings, the Boca Beacon obtained the raw data from the study through a demand for production of public records. At the time, we were told the final report on the study would be lengthy and was months away from completion. The Beacon published a story based on the raw data. A few days after the Beacon story appeared, the report – all eight pages of it – was posted on the FWC web site. Lengthy? Months away? Uh huh. The Beacon also obtained the FWC's emails concerning the study, also through a demand for production of public records. Among these hundreds of emails were messages from proponents of the break-away jig begging the study's lead researcher to structure the results to shine the best possible light on the device. Some begged FWC officials not to release the data at all (We often wondered how it was they came to learn of our public records request? Did someone inside the FWC tell them? Pillow talk, perhaps?). But most of the emails from the jigging community focused on a certain part of the tarpon's anatomy. The "clipper." The clipper is part of the tarpon's upper jaw. It is located aft of the mouth. About half of the tarpon caught on the jig were hooked in the clipper. Very few live bait tarpon were clipper-hooked. If you counted clipper-hooked fish as foul-hooked fish, the jiggers would be screwed. And the FWC wasn't going to screw the jiggers. As a result, some creative writing was required. In its report, the FWC explained that the clipper – a bony thing located well behind the tarpon's eye – was actually part of the tarpon's mouth. And this is where the tarpon study finally came unhinged. You can read the report, but the FWC explained away the jiggers' clipper snagged fish by suggesting that tarpon don't eat with their mouths, they eat through the back of their eyeballs. The explanation was so absurd, but so politically necessary, that the FWC would not allow the lead researcher to be present when the study was presented. This was verified by the emails the Beacon obtained. The FWC was concerned that under questioning she would fold up like a cheap lawn chair. The Boca Grande Fishing Guides Association, through its petition to the courts and the FWC, simply wants the truth. The guides want to know why thousands of taxpayer dollars were wasted on a tarpon study in Boca Grande Pass that was marginalized and fictionalized by the FWC. The Boca Grande Fishing Guides Association wants to depose the researcher – something the FWC desperately seeks to avoid – to ask the questions that need to be asked after all these years, and to examine the underlying pressures and relationships that clearly influenced her research and her conclusions. Gary Dutery is editor of the Boca Beacon. Copyright 2010, the Boca Beacon. Reproduction of this article is prohibited without the consent of the Boca Beacon. To obtain consent, email gdutery@bocabeacon.com Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Freezing Technique May Stop Breast Cancer (HealthDay via Yahoo! News) Posted: 05 Mar 2010 11:03 AM PST FRIDAY, March 5 (HealthDay News) -- Freezing breast tumors helped stop the spread of the cancer in mice, a new study has found. Researchers tested two cryoablation (freezing) techniques in mice with breast cancer. Both involve applying a cold probe to the tumor, but one method involves rapid freezing (about 30 seconds) of the tumor, while the other takes a few minutes. The mice that received cryoablation were compared to mice in which breast tumors were removed with surgery. Both cryoablation methods killed breast tumors. Mice treated with the rapid cryoablation had fewer tumors spread to the lungs and had better survival than mice treated with the slower freezing technique or those treated with surgery alone, according to the researchers from the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center. The better results associated with rapid cryoablation may result from changes in the immune system that help kill tumors. The slower freezing method didn't have the same effect on the immune system, the study authors found. The study findings are published online in the journal Annals of Surgical Oncology. The researchers are currently conducting a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of rapid cryoablation in breast cancer patients. "Cryoablation has strong potential as a treatment for breast cancer," study lead author Dr. Michael Sabel, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Medical School, said in a news release. "Not only does it appear effective in treating the primary tumor with little cosmetic concerns, but it also may stimulate an immune response capable of eradicating any cells that have traveled throughout the body, reducing both local and distant recurrence, similar to giving a breast cancer vaccine," he explained. "What we learned in this study is that all cryoablation is not equal," Sabel said. "The technique used to freeze the tissue can have a significant impact on how the immune system responds. The system we use today appears to be ideal for both destroying the tumor within the breast and generating an anti-cancer immune response." Currently, cryoablation is used routinely to treat prostate cancer, kidney cancer and a number of cancers that have spread to the liver and bones. More information The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about cryoablation as a cancer treatment. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for Study Techniques To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment