Clinical record keeping is an integral component in good professional practice and the delivery of quality healthcare. Regardless of the form of the records ( i.e. electronic or paper), good clinical record keeping should enable continuity of care and should enhance communication between different healthcare professionals. Consequently, clinical records should be updated, where appropriate, by all members of the multidisciplinary team that are involved in a patient’s care (physicians, surgeons, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, chaplains, administrators or students). Should the need arise patients themselves should have access to their records to be able to see what has been done and what has been considered. Clinical records are also valuable documents to audit the quality of healthcare services offered and can also be used for investigating serious incidents, patient complaints and compensation cases. In this issue of Breathe we will present the importance of keeping good clinical records, ways of facilitating this and an overview of legal aspects linked with clinical record keeping. There is also a list of suggested reading from several countries that may prove useful [1–13].

There is limited knowledge about the prognostic value of quantitative computed tomography (CT) measures of emphysema and airway wall thickness in cancer.The aim of this study was to investigate if using CT to quantitatively assess the amount of emphysema and airway wall thickness independently predicts the subsequent incidence of non-pulmonary cancer and lung cancer.In the GenKOLS study of 2003-2005, 947 ever-smokers performed spirometry and underwent CT examination. The main predictors were the amount of emphysema measured by the percentage of low attenuation areas (%LAA) on CT and standardised measures of airway wall thickness (AWT-PI10). Cancer data from 2003-2013 were obtained from the Norwegian Cancer Register. The hazard ratio associated with emphysema and airway wall thickness was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression for cancer diagnoses.During 10 years of follow-up, non-pulmonary cancer was diagnosed in 11% of the subjects with LAA <3%, in 19% of subjects with LAA 3-10%, and in 17% of subjects with LAA ≥10%. Corresponding numbers for lung cancer were 2%, 3% and 11%, respectively. After adjustment, the baseline amount of emphysema remained a significant predictor of the incidence of non-pulmonary cancer and lung cancer. Airway wall thickness did not predict cancer independently.This study offers a strong argument that emphysema is an independent risk factor for both non-pulmonary cancer and lung cancer.

No abstract

Introduction Based on the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST), guidelines on screening programs for lung cancer have recommended low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT). De Torres et al made a score for COPD patients (COPD‐LUCSS) to improve their selection criteria. Objective To examine and compare the discriminating value of both scores in a community‐based cohort of COPD patients. Methods Four hundred and twenty‐two ever‐smokers with COPD from the GenKOLS study in Bergen were merged with the Cancer Registry of Norway. We divided the patients into groups of high and low risk according to the COPD‐LUCSS and the NLST criteria. Cox regression and logistic regression were used to analyse the associations between the scores and lung cancer. We used Harrell's C and area under the curve (AUC) to estimate discriminating values and to compare the models. Results Hazard ratio for the high risk vs the low risk in the COPD‐LUCSS was 3.0 (1.4‐6.5 95% CI), P < 0.01. Hazard ratio for the NLST criteria was 2.2 (95% CI 1.1‐4.5), P < 0.05. Harrell's C was 0.63 for the COPD‐LUCSS and 0.59 for the NLST selection criteria. AUC was 0.61 for COPD‐LUCSS and 0.59 for NLST criteria. Comparing tests showed no differences (P = 0.76). Conclusion Although the COPD‐LUCSS and the NLST criteria were associated with increased risk of lung cancer, the AUC and Harrell's C values showed that these models have poor discriminating abilities in our cohort of COPD patients. The COPD‐LUCSS was not significantly better than the NLST criteria.

Upon receiving an invitation to an interview, you may feel as if you have finally gained your chance to prove yourself and then, in a few moments, this is almost always clouded by uncertainty, stress and "what if?" questions about your performance on the day: "What if they do not like me?", "What if I walk in there and I'm so stressed that I faint?", "What if the panel are aggressive?" In this article, we will go through the preparation stages for an interview, highlight a few pitfalls to avoid and provide some guidance in promoting yourself on the day. Taking into account that readers will be at different stages in their careers, this article seeks to be generic yet applicable to various levels of clinical, research and industry positions. Preparation for a job interview has always been challenging and, taking into account the diversity of undergraduate programmes in Europe, many early career members of the European Respiratory Society have not received dedicated training in interview techniques; therefore, we hope you will find this article helpful. How to prepare for an interview; this is your moment to shine and turn it into a successful experience! http://ow.ly/Wv0y302E8Fd