Type of publication:
Journal articleAuthor(s):
Loh, Melissa; *Azam, Hamnah; Jones, David CarlCitation:
Dental Update, February 2022; 49(2): p.161-164.Type of publication:
Journal articleAuthor(s):
Loh, Melissa; *Azam, Hamnah; Jones, David CarlCitation:
Dental Update, February 2022; 49(2): p.161-164.Type of publication:
Conference abstract
Author(s):
*Gupta A.; *Rashid M.U.; *Rupasinghe N.; *Adjepong S.; *Rink J.; *Kirby G.; *Jain R.; *Riera M.; *Parampalli U.; *Pattar J.
Citation:
British Journal of Surgery. Conference: UGI Congress 2021. Belfast United Kingdom. 108 (SUPPL 9) pp. ix34
Abstract:
Background: Acute or hot cholecystectomy (AC) has been established as a safe and efficacious modality of managing acute biliary pathology. However, it has been performed with caution in the elderly (defined by the world health organisation as patients over the age of 65). The NICE guidance in this area does not preclude this practise on elderly patients. Our acute cholecystectomy service treats patients of all ages according to performance status and fitness for surgery rather than age we audited our results in this age group. Method(s): All patients over the age of 65 who underwent acute cholecystectomy in the dedicated emergency cholecystectomy lists were audited from the period starting 31st December 2019 to 31st June 2021. Patient demographics, co-morbidies and surgical factors were recorded. The primary outcomes measure was in hospital stay and readmission, secondary outcome were complications and perioperative mortality. Result(s): 41 elderly patients underwent AC during the audit period, (male 18: female 23). Majority of patients had acute cholecystitis 30(73%). The median inpatient stay following surgery was 2 days(range 2-5 days) and the median admission to surgery time was 6 days (range 5-12 days). Only 3(7%) patients had a subtotal cholecystectomy. There was only 3 complications from surgery which were all between a clavien-dindo score of 2 and 3. There were 3 readmission in the immediate post-operative period. There was one 30-day mortality which was from necrotising pancreatitis as a result of ERCP and not from the operation. Conclusion(s): Acute cholecystectomy in this age group appears to be safe and effective way to treat acute biliary pathology and compares similarly to the outcomes in the younger
Type of publication:
Interactive case studyAuthor(s):
*Morris, DavidCitation:
Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(6)Abstract:
Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, this interactive case study takes you through the basic considerations of managing hypertension in type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.Type of publication:
Interactive case studyAuthor(s):
*Morris, DavidCitation:
Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(5)Abstract:
This interactive case study, presented by Diabetes & Primary Care, takes you through the necessary considerations in managing fatty liver disease in an individual with type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.Type of publication:
Interactive case studyAuthor(s):
*Morris, DavidCitation:
Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(4)Abstract:
Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the three mini-case studies presented below take you through what it is necessary to consider in identifying and managing steroid-induced hyperglycaemia. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.Type of publication:
Interactive case studyAuthor(s):
*Morris, DavidCitation:
Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(4)Abstract:
Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the four mini-case studies presented below will help you to consider what constitutes hypoglycaemia, what its causes and risk factors are in type 2 diabetes, how to detect and manage it in primary care, and strategies for minimising the risk. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.Type of publication:
Interactive case studyAuthor(s):
*Morris, DavidCitation:
Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(2)Abstract:
Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the three mini-case studies presented below take you through what it is necessary to consider in making an accurate diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.Type of publication:
Interactive case studyAuthor(s):
*Morris, DavidCitation:
Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(1)Abstract:
This interactive case study, presented by Diabetes & Primary Care, takes you through the necessary considerations in managing diabetic nephropathy in an individual with type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.Type of publication:
Journal articleAuthor(s):
Harvey P.R.; McKay S.C.; Wilkin R.J.W.; Layton G.R.; Powell-Brett S.; Okoth K.; Trudgill N.; Roberts K.J.; Baker G.; Brom M.K.; Brown Z.; Farrugia A.; Haldar D.; Kalisvaart M.; Marley A.; Pande R.; Patel R.; Stephenson B.T.F.; Baillie C.; Croitoru C.; Eddowes P.J.; Elshaer M.; Farhan-Alanie M.M.; Laing R.; Mann K.; Materacki L.; Nandi S.; Pericleous S.; Prasad P.; Rinkoff S.; Selvaraj E.; Shah J.; Sheel A.R.G.; Szatmary P.; Williams P.; Milburn J.; Bekheit M.; Ghazanfar M.; Curry H.; Persson P.; Rollo A.; Thomson R.; Harper S.; Varghese S.; Collins J.; Stupalkowska W.; Afzal Z.; Badran A.; Barker J.; Hakeem A.; Kader R.; Saji S.; Sheikh S.; Smith A.C.D.; Stasinos K.; Steinitz H.; Malik H.; Burston C.; Carrion-Alvarez L.; Shiwani M.; Ahmad G.; Allen T.; Darley E.; Patil S.; Brooks C.; Cresswell B.; Welsh F.; Cook C.; Smyth R.; Booth R.; West M.; King A.; Tucker O.; Phelan L.; Burahee A.; Devogel C.; Javed A.; Kay R.; Khan S.; Leet F.; Troth T.; Ward A.; Young J.; Murray E.; Gray T.; Johnson R.; Lockwood S.; Young R.; Zhou G.; Portal J.; Rees J.; Arnold B.; Scroggie D.; Abeysekera K.W.M.; Asif A.; Hay F.; Maccabe T.; Pathak S.; Robertson H.; Sandberg C.; Woodland H.; Charalabopoulos A.; Kordzadeh A.; Anderson J.; Napier D.; Hodges P.; Jones G.; Sheiybani G.; Archer T.; Khan A.; Kirk S.; Walker N.; Hassam U.; Wong I.; Silva M.; Jones K.; Allen J.; Abbas S.H.; Harborne M.; Majid Z.; Eardley N.; Reilly I.; Wadsworth P.; Bell C.; Holloway K.; Stockton W.; Thomas R.; Williams K.J.; Canelo R.; Tay Y.; Adnan M.; Aroori S.; Rajaretnam N.; Rekhraj S.; Wilkins A.; Nelapatia R.; Verebcean M.; Braithwaite S.; Apollos J.; Robertson N.; Belgaumkar A.; Brant A.; Shahdoost A.; French J.J.; Sen G.; Thakkar R.; Kanwar A.; Klaptocz J.; Rodham P.; O'Riordan B.; Maharaj G.; Davies M.; Higgs S.; Cutting J.; Joseph M.; Backhouse L.; Butler J.; Cooper J.; O'nions T.; Shaukat S.; Kumar A.; George V.; Ingmire J.; Saha A.; Coe P.; Noor R.; Lykoudis P.; Elshaer A.; Andreou A.; Clarke T.; Davies O.; Rimmer P.; Kanakala V.; Mitra V.; Akol G.; Burgess M.; Elzubier M.; Jones R.; Majumdar D.; Wescott H.; Bailey A.; Gomez M.; Herman O.; Deguara J.; Whitehead-Clarke T.; Gorard L.; Law R.; Leung L.Y.; Whitelaw D.; Adil M.; Krivan S.; Waters J.; Fernandes R.; Mealey L.; Merh R.; Okaro A.; Shepherd J.; O'Reilly D.; Pilkington J.; Hussain Z.; Ingram S.; Stott M.C.; Abbott S.; Bhamra N.; Hirri F.; Lee K.; Murrell J.; Resool S.; Taylor M.; King M.; Madhotra R.; Ayubi H.; Ali J.; Chander N.; Mckune G.; Wothers T.; Shingler G.; Mortimer M.; Dykes K.; Edwards H.; Menon S.; Gautham A.; Ali I.; Anjum R.; Brookes M.; Wilkinson B.; Tait I.; Noaman I.; Wilson M.; Mogan S.; Rushbrook S.; Hyde S.; Baker S.; Hall P.; Lucas H.; Pease J.; Millar A.; Tariq Z.; Blad W.; Cunningham M.; Hall M.; Luthra P.; Seymour K.; Aawsaj Y.; Jones M.; Elliott D.; Finch J.G.; Rajjoub Y.; Gupta A.; Molloy P.; Mykoniatis I.; Atallah E.; Albraba E.; Asimba V.; Baxter A.; Chin A.; Vojtekova K.; Ong L.; Modi H.N.; Muscara F.; Perry M.; Katz C.; Shaban N.; Dichmont L.; Dissanayake T.; Mostafa W.; Ghosh D.; Hwang S.; Bajomo O.; Lloyd T.; Wye J.; Holt A.; Pathanki A.; Townsend S.; Babar N.; Giovinazzo F.; Kennedy L.; Kandathil M.; King D.; Pillai M.; Glen P.; Holroyd D.; Drozdzik S.; Kourounis G.; Thompson J.; McNally S.; Thomas I.; Reddy Y.; Subar D.; Heywood N.; Khoo E.; Austin A.; Awan A.; Tan H.; Kasi M.; Prasad S.; Baqai M.; Abd Alkoddus M.; Al-Allaf O.; Mitchell K.; Mole S.; Yoong A.; Fusai G.; Brown S.; Bulathsinhala S.; Gilliland J.; Boyce T.; Al-Ardah M.; Matthews E.; Wakefield C.; Hou D.; Thomasset S.; Guest R.; Falconer S.; Hughes M.; Johnston C.; Kung J.W.C.; Lee E.; McNally E.; Sherif A.E.; Stutchfield B.; Baron R.D.; Dunne D.F.J.; Dickerson L.D.; Exarchou K.E.; Knight E.; Whelan P.; Hutchins R.; Wilson P.; Phillpotts S.; Badrulhisham F.; Dawes A.; Derwa Y.; Rajagopal S.; Ramoutar S.; Vaik T.; Bhogal R.H.; McLaren N.; Policastro T.; *Butterworth J.; *Riera M.; *Ismail A.; *Ahmed A.; *Alame R.; *Alford K.; *Banerjee S.; *Bull C.; *Kirby G.; Athwal T.; Hebbar S.; Ishtiaq J.; Kamran U.; Abbasi A.; Kamarul-bahrin M.; Banks A.; Khalil A.; Karanjia N.; Trivedi D.; Chakravaratty S.; Frampton A.; Gabriella J.; Pinn G.; Colleypriest B.; Betteridge F.; Murugiah D.; Rossiter A.; Yong K.; Sellahewa C.; Chui K.; Ehsan A.; Fisher N.; Iyer S.; McMurtry H.; Garbutt G.; Mahgoub S.; Alleyne L.; Harvey J.; Johnson K.; Richards E.; Palaniyappan N.; Bowler C.; Inumerable R.; Abu M.; Suhool A.; Talbot T.; Westwood J.; Zumbo G.; Osborne A.; Botes A.; Dyer S.; Thomas-Jones I.; Merker L.; Przemioslo R.; Roderick M.; Valverde J.; Zerafa A.; Barker S.; Wan A.; Lalani R.; Barrett C.; Kapirial N.; McCarthney K.; Ramamoorthy R.; Yalchin M.; Huggett M.; Macutkiewicz C.; Smith A.; Buchanan A.; Burke J.; Goodchild G.; Keane M.G.; Potts J.; Disney B.; McFarlane M.; Baker E.; Bullock S.; Coleman S.; Mcardle C.; Morgan J.; Mozdiak E.; Obisesan A.; O'Flynn L.; Mowbray N.; de Berker H.T.; Driscoll P.; Alberts J.C.; Sadien I.D.; Webb K.; Khalil H.; Parmar C.; Sadigh D.; Seyed-Safi P.; Shala L.; Somasundaram M.; Bryce G.; McCormack K.; Jamieson W.; Mitchell L.; Cheung D.; Hicken B.; Abbas N.; Kurian A.; Tahir I.; Spearman J.; Johnston T.; Jones C.Citation:
Pancreatology; Sep 2021; vol. 21 (no. 6); p. 1127-1134Abstract:
Objective: UK national guidelines recommend pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in pancreatic cancer. Over 80% of pancreatic cancers are unresectable and managed in non-surgical units. The aim was to assess variation in PERT prescribing, determine factors associated with its use and identify potential actions to improve prescription rates. Design(s): RICOCHET was a national prospective audit of malignant pancreatic, peri-ampullary lesions or malignant biliary obstruction between April and August 2018. This analysis focuses on pancreatic cancer patients and is reported to STROBE guidelines. Multivariable regression analysis was undertaken to assess factors associated with PERT prescribing. Result(s): Rates of PERT prescribing varied among the 1350 patients included. 74.4% of patients with potentially resectable disease were prescribed PERT compared to 45.3% with unresectable disease. PERT prescription varied across surgical hospitals but high prescribing rates did not disseminate out to the respective referring network. PERT prescription appeared to be related to the treatment aim for the patient and the amount of clinician contact a patient has. PERT prescription in potentially resectable patients was positively associated with dietitian referral (p = 0.001) and management at hepaticopancreaticobiliary (p = 0.049) or pancreatic unit (p = 0.009). Prescription in unresectable patients also had a negative association with Charlson comorbidity score 5-7 (p = 0.045) or >7 (p = 0.010) and a positive association with clinical nurse specialist review (p = 0.028). Conclusion(s): Despite national guidance, wide variation and under-treatment with PERT exists. Given that most patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable disease and are treated in non-surgical hospitals, where prescribing is lowest, strategies to disseminate best practice and overcome barriers to prescribing are urgently required.Altmetrics:
Type of publication:
Journal articleAuthor(s):
Parulekar P.; Powys-Lybbe J.; Aron J.; Knight T.; Lasserson D.; Smallwood N.; Rudge G.; *Miller A.; Peck M.Citation:
Journal of the Intensive Care Society; 2022 [epub ahead of print]Abstract:
Background: Combined Lung Ultrasound (LUS) and Focused UltraSound for Intensive Care heart (FUSIC Heart – formerly Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography, FICE) can aid diagnosis, risk stratification and management in COVID-19. However, data on its application and results are limited to small studies in varying countries and hospitals. This United Kingdom (UK) national service evaluation study assessed how combined LUS and FUSIC Heart were used in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Method(s): Twelve trusts across the UK registered for this prospective study. LUS and FUSIC Heart data were obtained, using a standardised data set including scoring of abnormalities, between 1st February 2020 to 30th July 2020. The scans were performed by intensivists with FUSIC Lung and Heart competency as a minimum standard. Data was anonymised locally prior to transfer to a central database. Result(s): 372 studies were performed on 265 patients. There was a small but significant relationship between LUS score >8 and 30-day mortality (OR 1.8). Progression of score was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (OR 1.2). 30-day mortality was increased in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (49.4% vs 29.2%). Severity of LUS score correlated with RV dysfunction (p < 0.05). Change in management occurred in 65% of patients following a combined scan. Conclusion(s): In COVID-19 patients, there is an association between lung ultrasound score severity, RV dysfunction and mortality identifiable by combined LUS and FUSIC Heart. The use of 12-point LUS scanning resulted in similar risk score to 6-point imaging in the majority of cases. Our findings suggest that serial combined LUS and FUSIC Heart on COVID-19 ICU patients may aid in clinical decision making and prognostication.Link to full-text [no password required]