Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in the Emergency Department (ED) and is the cause of more than half of the visits to the ED. Several attempts to improve pain management have been done by using, for example, standards/guidelines and education. To our knowledge no one has investigated if and how different actions over a longitudinal period affect the frequency of pain documentation in the ED. Therefore the aim of this study was to describe the frequency of documented pain assessments in the ED. Method: A cross-sectional study during 2006-2012 was conducted. The care of patients with wrist/arm fractures or soft tissue injuries on upper extremities was evaluated. Result: Despite various actions our result shows that mandatory pain assessment in the patient's computerized medical record was the only successful intervention to improve the frequencies of documentation of pain assessment during care in the ED. During the study period, no documentation of reassessment of pain was found despite the fact that all patients received pain medication. Conclusion: To succeed in increasing the frequency of documented pain assessment, mandatory pain rating is a successful action. However, the re-evaluation of documented pain assessment was nonexisting. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: National diabetes audits in the UK show room for improvement in the quality of care delivered to people with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Systematic reviews of quality improvement interventions show that such approaches can be effective but there is wide variability between trials and little understanding concerning what explains this variability. A national cohort study of primary care across 99 UK practices identified modifiable predictors of healthcare professionals' prescribing, advising and foot examination. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to improve six guideline-recommended health professional behaviours in managing type 2 diabetes in primary care: prescribing for blood pressure and glycaemic control, providing physical activity and nutrition advice and providing updated diabetes education and foot examination. Methods: Two-armed cluster randomised trial involving 44 general practices. Primary outcomes (at 12 months follow-up): from electronic medical records, the proportion of patients receiving additional prescriptions for blood pressure and insulin initiation for glycaemic control and having a foot examination; and from a patient survey of a random sample of 100 patients per practice, reported receipt of updated diabetes education and physical activity and nutrition advice. Results: The implementation intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvement on any of the six clinical behaviours. 1,138,105 prescriptions were assessed. Intervention (29% to 37% patients) and control arms (31% to 35%) increased insulin initiation relative to baseline but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95-1.48). Intervention (45% to 53%) and control practices (45% to 50%) increased blood pressure prescription from baseline to follow-up but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16). Intervention (75 to 78%) and control practices (74 to 79%) increased foot examination relative to baseline; control practices increased statistically significantly more (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94). Fewer patients in intervention (33%) than control practices (40%) reported receiving updated diabetes education (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.97). No statistically significant differences were observed in patient reports of having had a discussion about nutrition (intervention = 73%; control = 72%; OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.59-1.64) or physical activity (intervention = 57%; control = 62%; OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0. 56-1.11). Development and delivery of the intervention cost 1191 pound per practice. Conclusions: There was no measurable benefit to practices' participation in this intervention. Despite widespread use of outreach interventions worldwide, there is a need to better understand which techniques at which intensity are optimally suited to address the multiple clinical behaviours involved in improving care for type 2 diabetes.

Background and Aim: In psychiatric clinical practice, comorbidity of depression and alcohol use disorder (AUD) is common. Both disorders have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in general population. However, research on the impact of comorbid AUD on HRQoL among clinically depressed patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a psychosocial treatment intervention on HRQoL for depressive patients in specialized psychiatric care with a special focus on the impact of AUD on HRQoL. Material and Methods: Subjects were 242 patients of the Ostrobothnia Depression Study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02520271). Patients referred to specialized psychiatric care who scored at least 17 points on the Beck Depression Inventory at baseline and who had no psychotic disorders were included in the ODS. The treatment intervention in ODS comprised behavioral activation for all but began with motivational interviewing for those with AUD. HRQoL was assessed regularly during 24-month follow-up by the 15D instrument. In the present study, HRQoL of ODS patients with or without AUD was compared and the factors explaining 15D score analyzed with a linear mixed model. In order to specify the impact of clinical depression on HRQoL during the early phase of treatment intervention, a general population sample of the Finnish Health 2011 Survey was used as an additional reference group. Results: HRQoL improved among all ODS study sample patients regardless of comorbid AUD during the first year of follow-up. During 12–24 months of follow-up the difference between groups was seen as HRQoL continued to improve only among the non-AUD patients. A combination of male gender, anxiety disorder, and AUD was associated with the poorest HRQoL in this sample. In combined sample analyses with the reference group, clinical depression had an impact on HRQoL in short-term follow-up regardless of the treatment intervention. Conclusions: This study suggests that, in terms of improvement in HRQoL, the heterogenous group of depressive patients in specialized psychiatric care can be successfully treated with behavioral activation in combination with motivational interviewing for those with AUD. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02520271. Ostrobothnia Depression Study (ODS). A Naturalistic Follow-up Study on Depression and Related Substance Use Disorders. (2015). Available online at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02520271.

Aim: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) has been validated for use with adolescents to screen their harmful alcohol consumption. How well AUDIT or its derivative consumption version AUDIT-C predicts the development of problematic alcohol use among adolescents remains unknown. The aim of our study was to examine the predictive capacity of AUDIT and AUDIT-C among adolescents in a one-year follow-up. Methods: Finnish adolescents (N = 337) were examined at baseline with AUDIT and one year later with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children - Present and Lifetime version (KSADS-PL) interview to assess alcohol problem use. Test characteristics and regression models were analyzed in predicting alcohol problem use. Results: The sensitivity of AUDIT (cut-off >= 5) was 0.809 and specificity 0.621 in predicting alcohol problem use among adolescents one year later. The positive test posterior probability was 0.51. For those who screened negative at baseline, the positive test posterior probability was 0.13. With AUDIT-C (cut-off =3), the posterior probabilities were 0.47 and 0.12, respectively (sensitivity 0.855, specificity 0.529). The odds ratio was 6.95 for those screening positive with AUDIT and 6.59 with AUDIT-C at baseline to have alcohol problem use one year later. Conclusions: AUDIT has utility in screening youth at risk for developing alcohol problem use. It has significant predictive capacity in detecting risk especially among adolescents with depression.