ABSTRACT
Patients with acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) are usually admitted to hospital for management. There is growing interest in delivering intravenous (IV) diuretic therapy at home, in the community or at hospital day-care units; the safety and effectiveness of outpatient-based management (OPM) for ADHF has not been established. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the short-term safety and effectiveness of OPM compared with inpatient management (IPM) of ADHF. Pre-specified endpoints were 30 day mortality and 30 day hospitalization. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. Twenty-nine studies of OPM were identified, including 7683 patients. Only five studies directly compared OPM (n = 1303) with IPM (n = 2047), including three observational studies, and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The other 24 studies only stated OPM outcomes. For the five studies comparing IPM versus OPM, patients were generally aged >75 years and of similar age for each strategy, with a similar proportion of men (56%). In a study-level, aggregate analysis, 30 day all-cause mortality was 9.3% (121/1303) for OPM, compared with 15.6% (320/2047) for IPM [OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.09, 0.93) P = 0.04]. Four studies reported 30 day all-cause hospitalization; 22.0% for IPM versus 16.8% for OPM [OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.61, 0.89), P = 0.001]. In the two RCTs, we found no difference in 30 day mortality or hospitalization. In observational studies, OPM of ADHF is associated with lower 30 day hospitalization and lower 30 day mortality; such differences were not observed in two small, single-centre RCTs. A substantial, multicentre RCT is required to confirm the safety and effectiveness of OPM for ADHF.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Formal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement. OBJECTIVE: This study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor. METHODS: The British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data. RESULTS: Of the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring. CONCLUSIONS: British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction.
