The goals of nutritional management of liver disease in the dog and cat are directed at treating the clinical manifestations as opposed to treating the underlying cause. Specifically, the clinician strives to avoid overwhelming the remaining metabolic capacities of the damaged liver while providing sufficient nutrients for regeneration. A brief overview of liver diseases and associated clinical signs encountered in the dog and cat and a review of specific nutrients are discussed as well as amounts and sources of nutrients recommended to meet nutritional goals in the diseased liver.

Summary Background Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a major cause of hospital admission worldwide. The recent UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report on severe gastrointestinal bleeding used the Shock Index to assess bleeding severity and found an association between Shock Index and mortality. However, this has never been prospectively validated as a predictor of outcome in UGIB. Aims To compare the Shock Index with existing pre‐endoscopic UGIB risk scores in predicting outcomes after UGIB Methods In an international, prospective study of 3012 consecutive patients with UGIB, we compared the Shock Index with existing scores including the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), admission Rockall score, AIMS65, and the newly described “ABC” score. Pre‐determined endpoints were need for major (≥4 units red cells) transfusion, need for endoscopic therapy and 30‐day mortality. Results The Shock Index was inferior to the GBS in predicting need for major transfusion (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.655 vs 0.836, P < 0.001) and need for endotherapy (AUROC 0.606 vs 0.747, P < 0.001). The Shock Index was inferior to all other scores for 30‐day mortality: for example, AUROC 0.611 vs 0.863 for ABC score (P < 0.001). Adding the Shock Index to the ABC score did not improve accuracy of the ABC score in predicting mortality (AUROC 0.864 vs 0.863, P = 0.95). Conclusion The Shock Index performed poorly with AUROCs <0.66 and was inferior to existing pre‐endoscopy scores at predicting major clinical endpoints after UGIB. We found no clear evidence that the Shock Index is clinically useful at predicting outcomes in UGIB. [Correction added on 20 December 2019, after first online publication: Summary section has been changed for clarification.]

IntroductionChildren’s early development is affected by caregiving experiences, with lifelong health and well-being implications. Governments and civil societies need population-based measures to monitor children’s early development and ensure that children receive the care needed to thrive. To this end, the WHO developed the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) to measure children’s early development up to 3 years of age. The GSED includes three measures for population and programmatic level measurement: (1) short form (SF) (caregiver report), (2) long form (LF) (direct administration) and (3) psychosocial form (PF) (caregiver report). The primary aim of this protocol is to validate the GSED SF and LF. Secondary aims are to create preliminary reference scores for the GSED SF and LF, validate an adaptive testing algorithm and assess the feasibility and preliminary validity of the GSED PF.Methods and analysisWe will conduct the validation in seven countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Pakistan, The Netherlands, People's Republic of China, United Republic of Tanzania), varying in geography, language, culture and income through a 1-year prospective design, combining cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with 1248 children per site, stratified by age and sex. The GSED generates an innovative common metric (Developmental Score: D-score) using the Rasch model and a Development for Age Z-score (DAZ). We will evaluate six psychometric properties of the GSED SF and LF: concurrent validity, predictive validity at 6 months, convergent and discriminant validity, and test–retest and inter-rater reliability. We will evaluate measurement invariance by comparing differential item functioning and differential test functioning across sites.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethical approval from the WHO (protocol GSED validation 004583 20.04.2020) and approval in each site. Study results will be disseminated through webinars and publications from WHO, international organisations, academic journals and conference proceedings.Registration detailsOpen Science Frameworkhttps://osf.io/on 19 November 2021 (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KX5T7; identifier: osf-registrations-kx5t7-v1).

In 2015, perioperative nursing staff members at a community hospital designed and implemented a tool to help improve communication and performance. Our postprocedure wrap-up tool and its follow-up process have allowed us to achieve improvements in both efficiency and staff member satisfaction. By implementing a process to document problems as they occur and quickly transmit information to the staff members who are best able to correct these issues, we greatly improved our workflow. Furthermore, by inputting information into spreadsheets using problem codes, thereby replacing anecdotal information with hard data, we targeted areas that needed improvement and used that information for budget planning, training, and allocating resources. Enlisting the input of all members of the surgical team allowed us to identify the root causes of issues that interfered with the staff members' ability to provide efficient, safe, and reliable patient care.

No abstract