Pulmonary and systemic toxicity following exposure to nickel nanoparticles.

Nanoparticles are being used in ever increasing numbers in a range of industrial and medical products. Questions surrounding their potential to cause toxic effects in humans have been raised. Although animal experiments predict that nanoparticles are more toxic than their larger counterparts there are few descriptions in the literature of human exposure. A case described in 1994 has been re-examined from a pathology perspective. The subject, a 38-year-old previously healthy male, inhaled nanoparticles of nickel while spraying nickel onto bushes for turbine bearings using a metal arc process. He died 13 days after being exposed and the cause of death at autopsy was adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Nickel particles <25 nm in diameter were identified in lung macrophages using transmission electron microscopy. High levels of nickel were measured in his urine and his kidneys showed evidence of acute tubular necrosis.

Primary care consultations about medically unexplained symptoms: how do patients indicate what they want?

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUS) are often thought to deny psychological needs when they consult general practitioners (GPs) and to request somatic intervention instead. We tested predictions from the contrasting theory that they are transparent in communicating their psychological and other needs. OBJECTIVE: To test predictions that what patients tell GPs when they consult about MUS is related transparently to their desire for (1) emotional support, (2) symptom explanation and (3) somatic intervention. DESIGN: Prospective naturalistic study. Before consultation, patients indicated what they wanted from it using a self-report questionnaire measuring patients' desire for: emotional support, explanation and reassurance, and physical investigation and treatment. Their speech during consultation was audio-recorded, transcribed and coded utterance-by-utterance. Multilevel regression analysis tested relationships between what patients sought and what they said. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N = 326) consulting 33 GPs about symptoms that the GPs designated as MUS. RESULTS: Patients who wanted emotional support spoke more about psychosocial problems, including psychosocial causes of symptoms and their need for psychosocial help. Patients who wanted explanation and reassurance suggested more physical explanations, including diseases, but did not overtly request explanation. Patients' wish for somatic intervention was associated only with their talk about details of such interventions and not with their requests for them. CONCLUSIONS: In general, patients with medically unexplained symptoms provide many cues to their desire for emotional support. They are more indirect or guarded in communicating their desire for explanation and somatic intervention.

Doctors' attachment style and their inclination to propose somatic interventions for medically unexplained symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the theory that general practitioners (GPs) offer somatic intervention to patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) as a defensive response to patients' dependence. We predicted that GPs most likely to respond somatically after patients indicated symptomatic or psychosocial needs had attachment style characterised by negative models of self and others. METHOD: Twenty-five GPs identified 308 patients presenting MUS and indicated their own models of self and others. Consultations were audio recorded and coded speech-turn-by-speech-turn. We modeled the probability of GPs proposing somatic intervention on any turn as a function of their models of self and other and the number of prior turns containing symptomatic or psychosocial presentations. RESULTS: Prior psychosocial presentations decreased the likelihood of GPs offering somatic intervention. The decrease was greatest in GPs with most positive models of self and, contrary to prediction, least positive models of others. The positive relationship between prior somatic presentations and the likelihood that GPs offered somatic intervention was unrelated to either model. CONCLUSION: Findings are incompatible with our theory that GPs propose somatic interventions defensively. Instead, GPs may provide somatic intervention because they value patients (positive model of others) but devalue their own psychological skills (negative model of self).

Doctors' responses to patients with medically unexplained symptoms who seek emotional support: criticism or confrontation?

OBJECTIVE: Consultations about medically unexplained symptoms (MUSs) can resemble contests over the legitimacy of patients' demands. To understand doctors' motivations for speech appearing to be critical of patients with MUSs, we tested predictions that its frequency would be related to patients' demands for emotional support and doctors' patient-centered attitudes as well as adult attachment style. METHODS: Twenty-four general practitioners identified 249 consecutive patients presenting with MUSs and indicated their own patient-centered attitudes as well as adult attachment style (positive models of self and others). Before consultation, patients self-reported their desire for emotional support. Consultations were audio recorded and coded utterance by utterance. The number of utterances coded as criticism was the response variable in the multilevel regression analyses. RESULTS: Frequency of criticism was positively related to patients' demands for emotional support, to doctors' belief in sharing responsibility with patients and to doctors' positive model of themselves. It was inversely associated with doctors' belief that patients' feelings were legitimate business for consultation and was unrelated to their model of others. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of doctors, speech that appears to be critical probably reflects therapeutic intent and might therefore be better described as "confrontation." Understanding doctors' motivations for what they say to patients with MUSs will allow for more effective interventions to improve the quality of consultations.

Primary care consultations about medically unexplained symptoms: patient presentations and doctor responses that influence the probability of somatic intervention.

OBJECTIVE: In primary care, many consultations about physical symptoms that the doctor thinks are not explained by physical disease nevertheless lead to somatic interventions. Our objective was to test the predictions that somatic intervention becomes more likely a) when doctors provide simple reassurance rather than detailed symptom explanations and do not help patients discuss psychosocial problems and b) when patients try to engage doctors by extending their symptom presentation. METHODS: Consultations of 420 patients presenting physical symptoms that the doctor considered unexplained by physical disease were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Analysis modeled the probability of somatic intervention as a function of the quantity of specific types of speech by patients (symptomatic and psychosocial presentations) and doctors (normalization, physical explanations, psychosocial discussion). RESULTS: Somatic intervention was associated with the duration of consultation. Controlling for duration, it was, as predicted, associated positively with symptom presentations and inversely with patients' and doctors' psychosocial talk. The relationship with doctors' psychosocial talk was accounted for by patients' psychosocial talk. Contrary to predictions, doctors' normalization was inversely associated with somatic intervention and physical explanations had no effect. CONCLUSION: Somatic intervention did not result from the demands of patients. Instead, it became more likely as patients complained about their symptoms. Facilitating patients' psychosocial talk has the potential to divert consultations about medically unexplained symptoms from somatic interventions. To understand why such consultations often lead to somatic interventions, we must understand why patients progressively extend their symptom presentations and why doctors, in turn, apparently respond to this by providing somatic intervention.

Teaching veterinary radiography by e-learning versus structured tutorial: a randomized, single-blinded controlled trial.

Case-based e-learning may allow effective teaching of veterinary radiology in the field of equine orthopedics. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a new case-based e-learning tool, compared with a standard structured tutorial, in altering students' knowledge and skills about interpretation of radiographs of the digit in the horse. It was also designed to assess students' attitudes toward the two educational interventions. A randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial of 96 fourth-year undergraduate veterinary students, involving an educational intervention of either structured tutorial or case-based e-learning, was performed. A multiple-choice examination based on six learning outcomes was carried out in each group after the session, followed by an evaluation of students' attitudes toward their session on a seven-point scale. Text blanks were available to students to allow them to comment on the educational interventions and on their learning outcomes. Students also rated, on a Likert scale from 1 to 7, their performance for each specific learning outcome and their general ability to use a systematic approach in interpreting radiographs. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test, the t-test, and the equivalence test. There was no significant difference in student achievement on course tests. The results of the survey suggest positive student attitudes toward the e-learning tool and illustrate the difference between objective ratings and subjective assessments by students in testing a new educational intervention.

Why do primary care physicians propose medical care to patients with medically unexplained symptoms? A new method of sequence analysis to test theories of patient pressure.

OBJECTIVE: We test predictions from contrasting theories that primary care physicians offer medical care to patients with medically unexplained symptoms in response to a) patients' attribution of symptoms to disease and demand for treatment or b) their progressive elaboration of their symptoms in the attempt to engage their physicians. METHODS: Primary care physicians identified consecutive patients who consulted with symptoms that the physician considered unexplained by physical disease. Four hundred twenty consultations with 36 physicians were audio recorded and transcribed, and physician and patient speech was coded turn by turn. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis modeled the probability of the physician proposing medical care as a function of the quantity of patients' speech of specific kinds that preceded it. RESULTS: Whether physicians proposed medical care was unrelated to patients' attributions to disease or demands for treatment. Proposals of explicitly somatic responses (drugs, investigation or specialist referral) became more likely after patients had elaborated their symptoms and less likely after patients indicated psychosocial difficulties. Proposals of a further primary care consultation were responses simply to lengthening consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are incompatible with the influential assumption that physicians offer medical care to patients with unexplained symptoms because the patients demand treatment for a physical disease. Instead, the reason why many of these patients receive high levels of medical care should be sought by investigating the motivations behind physicians' responses to patients' symptom presentation.