Caring for the healthcare professional.

Purpose Hospitals must systematically support employees in innovative ways to uphold a culture of care that strengthens the system. At a leading Canadian academic pediatric rehabilitation hospital, over 90 percent of clinicians viewed Schwartz Rounds™ (SR) as a hospital priority, resulting in its formal implementation as a quality improvement initiative. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the hospital implemented SR to support the socio-emotional impact of providing care. Design/methodology/approach This quantitative descriptive study provides a snapshot of the impact of each SR through online surveys at four assessment points (SR1-SR4). A total of 571 responses were collected. Findings All four SR addressed needs of staff as 92.9-97.6 percent of attendees reported it had a positive impact, and 96.4-100 percent of attendees reported each SR was relevant. Attendees reported significantly greater communication with co-workers after each SR ( p<0.001) and more personal conversations with supervisors after SR2 and SR4 ( p<0.05) compared to non-attendees. Attending SR also increased their perspective-taking capacity across the four SR. Practical implications As evidenced in this quality improvement initiative, SR addresses staff's need for time to process the socio-emotional impacts of care and to help reduce those at risk for compassion fatigue. SR supports and manages the emotional healthcare culture, which has important implications for quality patient care. Originality/value This research details an organization's process to implement SR and highlights the importance of taking care of the care provider.

Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in patients with bacterial conjunctivitis: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, 5-day efficacy and safety study.

BACKGROUND: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% is a new topical fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Besifloxacin has potent in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of ocular pathogens, including drug-resistant strains. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle (the formulation without besifloxacin) in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Patients received either topical besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension or vehicle administered 3 times daily for 5 days. At study entry and on days 4 and 8 (visits 2 and 3), a clinical assessment of ocular signs and symptoms was performed in both eyes, as well as pinhole visual acuity testing, biomicroscopy, and culture of the infected eye(s). An ophthalmoscopic examination was performed at study entry and on day 8. The primary efficacy outcome measures were clinical resolution and eradication of the baseline bacterial infection on day 8 in culture-confirmed patients. The safety evaluation included adverse events, changes in visual acuity, and biomicroscopy and ophthalmoscopy findings in all patients who received at least 1 dose of active treatment or vehicle. RESULTS: The safety population consisted of 269 patients (mean [SD] age, 34.2 [22.3] years; 60.2% female; 82.5% white) with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. The culture-confirmed intent-to-treat population consisted of 118 patients (60 besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension, 58 vehicle). Significantly more patients receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than vehicle had clinical resolution of the baseline infection at visit 3 (44/60 [73.3%] vs 25/58 [43.1%], respectively; P < 0.001). Rates of bacterial eradication also were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension compared with vehicle at visit 3 (53/60 [88.3%] vs35/58 [60.3%]; P < 0.001). The cumulative frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (69/137 [50.4%] and 70/132 [53.0%]). The most common ocular adverse events were eye pain (20/190 treated eyes [10.5%] and 13/188 [6.9%]), blurred vision (20/190 [10.5%] and 22/188 [11.7%]), and eye irritation (14/190 [7.4%] and 23/188 [12.2%]); these events were of mild or moderate severity. Changes in visual acuity and treatment-emergent events observed on biomicroscopy and direct ophthalmoscopy also were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% given 3 times daily for 5 days was both efficacious and well tolerated compared with vehicle in the treatment of these patients with bacterial conjunctivitis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00622908.

Terbinafine hydrochloride oral granules versus oral griseofulvin suspension in children with tinea capitis: results of two randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, international, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although griseofulvin is currently considered the primary antifungal agent used to treat tinea capitis in many countries, increasingly higher doses and longer durations of treatment are becoming necessary to achieve effective treatment. Alternative antifungal therapies with shorter/simpler treatment regimens may be important to develop for this indication. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new pediatric formulation of terbinafine hydrochloride oral granules with griseofulvin oral suspension in the treatment of tinea capitis. METHOD: Children (4-12 years of age) with clinically diagnosed and potassium hydroxide microscopy-confirmed tinea capitis were randomized in two identical studies (trial 1, trial 2) to once-daily treatment with terbinafine (5-8 mg/kg; n = 1040) or griseofulvin administered per label (10-20 mg/kg; n = 509) for a period of 6 weeks followed by 4 weeks of follow-up. End-of-study complete cure (negative fungal culture and microscopy with Total Signs and Symptoms Score [TSSS] = 0), and mycologic (negative culture and microscopy) and clinical cure (TSSS = 0) were primary and secondary efficacy variables, respectively. Efficacy analysis was based on pooled data using modified intent-to-treat population (those who received at least one dose of study drug and had positive baseline fungal culture, N = 1286). Safety assessments included monitoring of the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Rates of complete cure and mycologic cure were significantly higher for terbinafine than for griseofulvin (45.1% vs 39.2% and 61.5% vs 55.5%, respectively; P < .05). A majority (86.7%) of patients received griseofulvin, 10 to 19.9 mg/kg per day; complete cure rate was not found to be higher among patients who received griseofulvin more than 20 mg/kg per day compared with those who received less than 20 mg/kg per day. Complete cure rate was statistically significantly greater for terbinafine compared to griseofulvin in trial 1 (46.23% vs 34.01%) but not in trial 2 (43.99% vs 43.46%). On the basis of pooled data, clinical cure was higher for terbinafine than for griseofulvin, but the difference was not found to be statistically significant (P = .10). Subgroup analyses revealed that terbinafine was significantly better than griseofulvin for all cure rates--mycologic, clinical, and complete--among patients with Trichophyton tonsurans but not Microsporum canis (P < .001). For M. canis, mycologic and clinical cure rates were significantly better with griseofulvin than with terbinafine (P < .05). Approximately 50% of patients in each group reported an AE; almost all were mild or moderate in severity. Nasopharyngitis, headache, and pyrexia were most common in both groups. There were no drug-related serious AEs, no deaths, and no significant effects on weight or laboratory parameters, including liver transaminases. LIMITATIONS: In retrospect, a difference in the distribution of infecting microorganisms between the two trials was a limitation. Stringent adherence to griseofulvin doses recommended by prescribing information but smaller than those used in current clinical practice, and exclusion of adjuvant therapies such as shampoos or topical agents, which are routinely used in practice, are other limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this largest pediatric trial of terbinafine to date indicate that terbinafine is efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of tinea capitis. Terbinafine is an effective alternative to griseofulvin against T. tonsurans tinea capitis.