Rationale
This study evaluates the process and preliminary outcomes of Promoting Community Conversations About Research to End Suicide (PC CARES), an intervention that brings key stakeholders together so they can discuss suicide prevention research and find ways to put it into practice. Originally piloted in remote and rural Alaskan communities, the approach shows promise.
Method
Using a multi-method design, the study describes a series of locally-facilitated “learning circles” over 15 months and their preliminary results. Sign-in sheets documented participation. Transcriptions of audio-recorded sessions captured facilitator fidelity, accuracy, and the dominant themes of community discussions. Linked participant surveys (n=83) compared attendees’ perceived knowledge, skills, attitudes, and their ‘community of practice’ at baseline and follow-up. A cross-sectional design compared 112 participants’ with 335 non-participants’ scores on knowledge and prevention behaviors, and considered the social impact with social network analyses.
Results
Demonstrating feasibility in small rural communities, local PC CARES facilitators hosted 59 two to three hour learning circles with 535 participants (376 unique). Local facilitators achieved acceptable fidelity to the model (80%), and interpreted the research accurately 81% of the time. Discussions reflected participants’ understanding of the research content and its use in their lives. Participants showed positive changes in perceived knowledge, skills, and attitudes and strengthened their ‘community of practice’ from baseline to follow-up. Social network analyses indicate PC CARES had social impact, sustaining and enhancing prevention activities of non-participants who were ‘close to’ participants. These close associates were more likely take preventive actions than other non-participants after the intervention.
Conclusion
PC CARES offers a practical, scalable method for community-based translation of research evidence into selfdetermined, culturally-responsive suicide prevention practice.
Background:Early surgery for appendicitis is thought to avoid complications associated with appendiceal rupture.Aims:This study was to evaluate the effect of timing of surgery on complications, length of stay (LOS) and cost in patients undergoing appendectomy.Materials and Methods:Retrospective review of 396 patients with appendectomies from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 was performed. Demographic data, time of presentation, physical findings, diagnostic data, operating room times, LOS, cost and complications were collected. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on time from presentation to appendectomy.Results:Pathology confirmed appendicitis in 354 (89%) patients. Most patients (90%) had surgery within 18 h of presentation. Timing of surgery did not affect the incidence of purulent peritonitis (P = 0.883), abscess (P = 0.841) or perforation (P = 0.464). LOS was significantly shorter for patients with emergency department registration to operating room times less than 18 h (P < 0.0001). Costs were significantly higher for patients with times to operating room greater than 18 h (P < 0.001).Conclusion:Timing of surgery did not affect the incidence of complications or perforated appendicitis. However, delay in surgical consultation and surgery are associated with increased LOS and increased hospital costs. The optimal timing of appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis appears to be within 18 h of emergency department presentation.
Elective inguinal hernia repair carries a similar mortality in the elderly compared to the general population. Emergent IHR carries a very high risk of death in the elderly. The authors recommend considering elective IHR regardless of age.
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.