A Consensus Set of Outcomes for Parkinson's Disease from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that is expected to double in prevalence due to demographic shifts. Value-based healthcare is a proposed strategy to improve outcomes and decrease costs. To move towards an actual value-based health care system, condition-specific outcomes that are meaningful to patients are essential. OBJECTIVE: Propose a global consensus standard set of outcome measures for PD. METHODS: Established methods for outcome measure development were applied, as outlined and used previously by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). An international group, representing both patients and experts from the fields of neurology, psychiatry, nursing, and existing outcome measurement efforts, was convened. The group participated in six teleconferences over a six-month period, reviewed existing data and practices, and ultimately proposed a standard set of measures by which patients should be tracked, and how often data should be collected. RESULTS: The standard set applies to all cases of idiopathic PD, and includes assessments of motor and non-motor symptoms, ability to work, PD-related health status, and hospital admissions. Baseline demographic and clinical variables are included to enable case mix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The Standard Set is now ready for use and pilot testing in the clinical setting. Ultimately, we believe that using the set of outcomes proposed here will allow clinicians and scientists across the world to document, report, and compare PD-related outcomes in a standardized fashion. Such international benchmarks will improve our understanding of the disease course and allow for identification of 'best practices', ultimately leading to better informed treatment decisions.

Standardized Outcome Measurement for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus From the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes consistently improve when they are routinely measured and provided back to physicians and hospitals. However, few centers around the world systematically track outcomes, and no global standards exist. Furthermore, patient-centered outcomes and longitudinal outcomes are under-represented in current assessments. METHODS AND RESULTS: The nonprofit International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international Working Group to define a consensus standard set of outcome measures and risk factors for tracking, comparing, and improving the outcomes of CAD care. Members were drawn from 4 continents and 6 countries. Using a modified Delphi method, the ICHOM Working Group defined who should be tracked, what should be measured, and when such measurements should be performed. The ICHOM CAD consensus measures were designed to be relevant for all patients diagnosed with CAD, including those with acute myocardial infarction, angina, and asymptomatic CAD. Thirteen specific outcomes were chosen, including acute complications occurring within 30 days of acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, or percutaneous coronary intervention; and longitudinal outcomes for up to 5 years for patient-reported health status (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ-7], elements of Rose Dyspnea Score, and Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]), cardiovascular hospital admissions, cardiovascular procedures, renal failure, and mortality. Baseline demographic, cardiovascular disease, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: ICHOM recommends that this set of outcomes and other patient information be measured for all patients with CAD.

When should axillary drains be removed post axillary dissection? A systematic review of randomised control trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the evidence-based optimal strategy for management of drains following axillary dissection. BACKGROUND: Despite randomised control trials addressing the issue over the past 20-30 years, there is no widely accepted consensus as to when drains should be removed post axillary dissection. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science Citation Index. References within identified studies were also searched. Studies were independently identified and data extracted according to a pre-determined proforma based on the Cochrane Collaboration data extraction template by two independent researchers. Validity was determined according to a published standard. Discrepancies were corrected by consensus. RESULTS: There was no difference in infection rates between early and late drain removal, hospital stay was reduced when drains were removed earlier, and higher total volume drainage prior to drain removal predicted subsequent seroma formation. The optimal timing of drain removal post axillary dissection could not be determined from the literature. CONCLUSION: Optimal timing of drain removal following axillary dissection remains unknown after this systematic review due to heterogeneity between included studies leading to an inability to provide evidence-based consensus guidance.