Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Edmunds

Publications and source records attributed to J Edmunds.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

A randomised controlled crossover trial of nurse practitioner versus doctor led outpatient care in a bronchiectasis clinic.

BACKGROUND: With the decrease in junior doctor hours, the advent of specialist registrars, and the availability of highly trained and experienced nursing personnel, the service needs of patients with chronic respiratory diseases attending routine outpatient clinics may be better provided by appropriately trained nurse practitioners. METHODS: A randomised controlled crossover trial was used to compare nurse practitioner led care with doctor led care in a bronchiectasis outpatient clinic. Eighty patients were recruited and randomised to receive 1 year of nurse led care and 1 year of doctor led care in random order. Patients were followed up for 2 years to ensure patient safety and acceptability and to assess differences in lung function. Outcome measures were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), 12 minute walk test, health related quality of life, and resource use. RESULTS: The mean difference in FEV(1) was 0.2% predicted (95% confidence interval -1.6 to 2.0%, p=0.83). There were no significant differences in the other clinical or health related quality of life measures. Nurse led care resulted in significantly increased resource use compared with doctor led care (mean difference pound 1497, 95% confidence interval pound 688 to pound 2674, p<0.001), a large part of which resulted from the number and duration of hospital admissions. The mean difference in resource use was greater in the first year ( pound 2625) than in the second year ( pound 411). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioner led care for stable patients within a chronic chest clinic is safe and is as effective as doctor led care, but may use more resources.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2001

The reprofessionalisation of community pharmacy? An exploration of attitudes to extended roles for community pharmacists amongst pharmacists and General Practioners in the United Kingdom.

In the light of recent developments within the British National Health Service some sociologists have suggested that the medical profession's status is under threat. They have specified a range of factors contributing to this state of affairs, such as the new consumerism; however, it is thought that attempts by other, related occupations at reprofessionalisation are particularly significant in this trend. It may be possible to understand recent initiatives at extending community pharmacists' role within this framework. This paper suggests that while community pharmacy is developing strategies to enhance its professional status, it is not so much an attempt at usurping general practitioners'(GPs) (primary care doctors') role as a bid for survival, especially on the part of the rank and file. However, GPs do not necessarily see the initiatives in this light. Although many GPs are accommodating some changes in community pharmacy, they also perceive some of the initiatives as a threat to their autonomy and control, this was especially evident in representative bodies such as the Local Medical Committee. Doctors' accommodating attitudes were qualified with traditional attitudes of dominance such as 'limitation' and 'exclusion'. Such attitudes could prevent community pharmacy from achieving professional status. However, there is also evidence that pharmacists themselves contribute to this situation because many of them also attribute ultimate authority to doctors. Moreover, they are held back by internal occupational divisions particularly between retail pharmacists and employee pharmacists, with the former being the most insecure.

Attitude↗
PubMed2001

Mamatoto.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Fathers↗
PubMed2000

Effect of a clinical pharmacist-managed lipid clinic on achieving National Cholesterol Education Program low-density lipoprotein goals.

Despite national guidelines for treatment of hyperlipidemia, significant numbers of individuals with coronary artery disease are not treated to their National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein (LDL) goals. The potential benefits of a clinical pharmacist-managed lipid clinic would be to improve rates of success in achieving these goals, improve drug adherence and compliance with therapy, and reduce cardiovascular events. All patients who had a documented history of coronary artery disease and were under the care of one cardiologist were treated in the pharmacist-managed lipid clinic. A second cardiologist provided usual care to a group of patients with coronary artery disease who served as controls. Patients in each arm were followed for a minimum of 6 months. A protocol for therapy changes in clinic patients was developed by the clinical pharmacist and approved by the cardiologist. At the end of 6 months, 69% of patients in the pharmacist-managed clinic achieved their LDL goal, compared with 50% of controls. Compliance with laboratory tests and drug regimens also improved in clinic patients. Compliance with lipid panels went from 8% 2 months before to 89% 2 months after the start of the study. At the end of 6 months compliance with laboratory work and refills was 80%. Thus the clinical pharmacist-managed clinic was highly successful in achieving NCEP goals for secondary prevention.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Evaluating the donor pool: impact of using hearts from donors over the age of 49 years.

The shortage of hearts for transplantation has led to the use of organs from older donors in many centres. Despite the lack of coronary angiography on potential organ donors, hearts from carefully selected donors over 49 years of age have been used at this centre since 1988. In the study reported here looked at the impact of this strategy on morbidity and mortality. Between May 1988 and August 1996, 400 first heart transplants were performed, 35 recipients (31 male, 4 female; age 51 +/- 5.9 years) received hearts from donors over 49 years of age (group 1) while 365 (310 male, 55 female; age 49 +/- 9.7 years) had younger donors (group 2). The mean ischaemic time was 189 min (+/- 63.1) in group 1 and 180 min (+/- 59.2) in group 2 (n.s.). The main aetiology of heart failure in groups 1 and 2 was coronary artery disease in 46% and 51%, and dilated cardiomyopathy in 40% and 45% respectively (n.s.). There were no differences in the duration of stay on the intensive care unit or in hospital between the groups. One-year survival was 79% in group 1 and 82% in group 2 (n.s.) and actuarial 5-year survival 69% and 67%, respectively. Six patients in group 1 (17%) and 45 patients in group 2 (12%) died in the first 3 months; of these primary donor organ failure accounted for 50% in group 1 and 13.3% in group 2 (n.s.). Episodes of acute rejection (in the first 3 months) were similar in the two groups: 1.4 and 1.6 per 100 patient days, respectively. Infection rates were also similar: 0.5 and 0.6 per 100 patient days, respectively. The prevalence of coronary artery disease on surveillance coronary angiography at 2 years was 23% in group 1 and 9% in group 2 (P < 0.005). There was a greater proportion of CMV antibody donors in the older donor group, but the association between donor age and coronary artery disease persisted after adjusting for CMV status in multivariate analysis. Too few patients underwent angiography thereafter for valid comparisons. In summary, recipients of organs from donors aged 49 years and over can expect comparable survival rates and morbidity levels to recipients of organs from younger donors, at least in the first 2 years postoperation. There is evidence that older donors confer a significantly higher risk of cardiac allograft vasculopathy which may result in a greater attrition rate thereafter. Careful follow-up of these patients after 2 years is required.

Age Factors↗