This article describes some dilemmas and problems encountered in a Delphi study of general practitioners' (GPs) information requirements. The research involved a three-round Delphi administered to an expert panel of 50 GPs in one Welsh health authority area. The Delphi is generally perceived as a qualitative METHOD: However, we argue that the requirements of the technique make it difficult to sustain the kind of inductive analysis - faithfully reflecting respondents' perspectives - that is axiomatic to many of the theoretical approaches that underpin qualitative inquiry. We describe how our attempts to incorporate respondents' views in near-verbatim form in the first round were undermined by the need to classify and reduce statements for later rounds, and to impose judgments about what should count as consensus. The iterative 'consensus-building' process, that is so central to the Delphi, was difficult to take forward without active intervention by the research team, but this involved a re-ordering and reduction of the data, which moved the statements included in later rounds further and further from the verbatim responses on which they were based. Whilst the findings of the study were useful on one level, the final consensus statements took a general, virtually context-free form, which contained few references to background preoccupations (largely concerned with the recent NHS reforms) that were exercising GPs at this time. The method also coped badly with the polarized opinions that existed regarding the development of information systems for commissioning. We conclude that the Delphi is best used for large-scale research in areas where opinions are well established, where the problems and choices confronting the study group are well known, and where a major programme of organizational reform is not already underway.
Aims The aim of this study was to compare the effects of aspirin on platelet function as measured by the 'classical' template bleeding time with a new ex vivo method measuring closure times using the PFA-100@ machine. Platelet aggregation in response to arachidonic acid was also measured ex vivo. Methods The trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, with each volunteer taking 750 mg aspirin (BP) or placebo, three times a day for 5 days, with an 18 day wash-out period between treatments. Bleeding times and closure times were measured before the first dose on the first day and 0.5 h after the last dose on the fifth day of each treatment period. They were also measured 2 weeks after the last day of the trial. Results Baseline bleeding times ( pre-placebo) were 415 s using the Simplate, whilst baseline closure times were 115 s using the PFA-100@. Aspirin treatment caused an increase of both the template bleeding time (61%) and the closure time of the PFA-100@ (79%) when compared with the effects of placebo. The platelet aggregatory response to arachidonic acid was completely inhibited following aspirin treatment and was unaffected following placebo. Two weeks after the end of the trial, all values had returned to pre-treatment levels. The template bleeding time was unaltered in 1 of the 12 volunteers during aspirin treatment and was significantly prolonged in 3 of the 12 volunteers during placebo treatment. The PFA-100@ closure time was unaltered in 1 of the 12 volunteers during aspirin treatment and was prolonged in 1 subject during placebo treatment. Conclusions The change in closure time using the PFA-100@ is as sensitive and reproducible to the effects of aspirin on platelet function as is the template bleeding time test. However, the PFA-100@ produced less variable effects with fewer false positive results.
The diagnostic protocol described is recommended for the investigation of headshakers. Caudal compression offers the best prognosis for a successful outcome compared with other treatments, for horses in which the only alternative is euthanasia. Surgical treatment of the disorder requires refinement, and the pathogenesis of the disorder requires investigation.
Objectives: To review the outcome of acute ventilatory support in patients presenting acutely with respiratory failure, either with an established diagnosis of motor neurone disease (MND) or with a clinical event where the diagnosis of MND has not yet been established. Methods: Outcome was reviewed in 24 patients with respiratory failure due to MND who received endotracheal intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation either at presentation or as a result of the unexpected development of respiratory failure. Patients presenting to local hospitals with acute respiratory insufficiency and requiring tracheal intubation, ventilatory support, and admission to an intensive therapy unit (ITU) before transfer to a regional respiratory care unit were selected. Clinical features of presentation, management, and outcome were studied. Results: 24 patients with MND were identified, all being intubated and ventilated acutely within hours of presentation. 17 patients (71%) were admitted in respiratory failure before the diagnosis of MND had been made; the remaining seven patients (29%) were already known to have MND but deteriorated rapidly such that intubation and ventilation were initiated acutely. Seven patients (29%) died on ITU (between seven and 54 days after admission). 17 patients (71%) were discharged from ITU. 16 patients (67%) received long term respiratory support and one patient required no respiratory support following tracheal extubation. The daily duration of support that was required increased gradually with time. Conclusion: When a patient with MND is ventilated acutely, with or without an established diagnosis, independence from the ventilator is rarely achieved. Almost all of these patients need long term ventilatory support and the degree of respiratory support increases with time as the disease progresses. The aim of management should be weaning the patient to the minimum support compatible with symptomatic relief and comfort. Respiratory failure should be anticipated in patients with MND when the diagnosis has been established.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.