{"title":"Ontario Student Medical Education Research Conference (OSMERC) 2024","authors":"Ontario Medical Students Association (OMSA)","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1128","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"1991 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140719176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) technology has revolutionized the practice of prenatal screening. The assay’s validity and reliability have been demonstrated in both low- and high-risk pregnancies. Despite its excellent screening parameters, its reliability is often overestimated due to confusing and incorrect terminology that appears in private NIPT reports. Herein, we provide a brief explanation of the potential implications at two different levels: patient and provider. We conclude with a call to redesign the way information is presented on NIPT reports to avoid stressing patients, enhance transparency in clinical counselling, and perhaps most critically, to prevent medical decisions that may not be warranted solely based on the NIPT results.
{"title":"Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a call for change in reporting practices","authors":"Samuel Wilson, Jacques Balayla","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1067","url":null,"abstract":"The use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) technology has revolutionized the practice of prenatal screening. The assay’s validity and reliability have been demonstrated in both low- and high-risk pregnancies. Despite its excellent screening parameters, its reliability is often overestimated due to confusing and incorrect terminology that appears in private NIPT reports. Herein, we provide a brief explanation of the potential implications at two different levels: patient and provider. We conclude with a call to redesign the way information is presented on NIPT reports to avoid stressing patients, enhance transparency in clinical counselling, and perhaps most critically, to prevent medical decisions that may not be warranted solely based on the NIPT results.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"107 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140483701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Advance Care Planning (ACP) has benefits for patients and is often optimal when done in the primary care setting. Despite the development of multiple resources and tools to support ACP discussions at our Family Medicine Teaching Clinic, the initiation and documentation of Advance Care Directives (ACD) in patients’ medical files were low and resident physicians had perceived that patients were unwilling or unprepared for ACP discussions. The goal of this project was to understand the challenges and barriers that patients and their caregivers face in initiating and discussing ACD with their primary care team. Methods: An online survey was conducted among 78 patients who are part of the Home Care program at the Herzl clinic. Participants were asked about the value placed on ACP and their preferences on various aspects surrounding the initiation of ACD discussions. Results: 25 of 78 possible responses were received. This included survey responses from 6 patients, 13 caregivers, 4 family members and 2 physicians. Our results show that patients and their caregivers value Advance Care Planning discussions (>80%). Additionally, they endorse multiple benefits of ACP for themselves, their care teams and families. Patients and caregivers prefer that medical professionals initiate and facilitate the discussions (70-80%) and are open to receive educational material to prepare for these discussions (68%). Conclusion: Patients in a frail population are willing and open to discuss advance care planning with their primary care team. Family Medicine teaching clinics can support patients’ desire to engage in ACP by providing access to education material and initiating these discussions.
{"title":"Advance Care Directives: A Herzl Clinic Quality Improvement Project on Patients' perspectives","authors":"Fanny Hersson-Edery","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1036","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Advance Care Planning (ACP) has benefits for patients and is often optimal when done in the primary care setting. Despite the development of multiple resources and tools to support ACP discussions at our Family Medicine Teaching Clinic, the initiation and documentation of Advance Care Directives (ACD) in patients’ medical files were low and resident physicians had perceived that patients were unwilling or unprepared for ACP discussions. The goal of this project was to understand the challenges and barriers that patients and their caregivers face in initiating and discussing ACD with their primary care team. Methods: An online survey was conducted among 78 patients who are part of the Home Care program at the Herzl clinic. Participants were asked about the value placed on ACP and their preferences on various aspects surrounding the initiation of ACD discussions. Results: 25 of 78 possible responses were received. This included survey responses from 6 patients, 13 caregivers, 4 family members and 2 physicians. Our results show that patients and their caregivers value Advance Care Planning discussions (>80%). Additionally, they endorse multiple benefits of ACP for themselves, their care teams and families. Patients and caregivers prefer that medical professionals initiate and facilitate the discussions (70-80%) and are open to receive educational material to prepare for these discussions (68%). Conclusion: Patients in a frail population are willing and open to discuss advance care planning with their primary care team. Family Medicine teaching clinics can support patients’ desire to engage in ACP by providing access to education material and initiating these discussions.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139225462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yi Wen Wang, Justine M. Behan, Sunny Jeong, Ramandeep Singh Arora, Franco Carnevale, A. Tsimicalis
Background & Objectives: The perspectives of children have becoming increasingly emphasized in healthcare research and practice in order to facilitate children’s inclusion, participation, and decision-making in matters related to their health. In India, however, little is known about children’s views regarding their health despite the various health challenges and ethical concerns they may face, such as poverty, malnutrition, and gender inequalities. The aim of this scoping review is to explore children’s health-related experiences from their own perspectives in India from 2000 to 2020. Methods: Five online databases were searched. Three independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion. Included texts were analyzed using thematic synthesis, which involved extracting and descriptively coding data, categorizing/grouping codes by similar topics, and comparing and contrasting topics to generate descriptive themes. The scoping review was reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Results: Fifty-two articles were included, and five descriptive themes were identified. The articles typically overlapped in themes, which related to children’s health-related experiences (n=38), emotions (n=19), and knowledge (n=15); the impact of illness on children’s lives (n=41); and children’s ability to communicate their needs (n=12). Interpretation & Conclusions: We identified the need to tailor research designs to better elicit children’s perspectives and provide comprehensive health education for children and families in India. This scoping review helped to highlight gaps in healthcare policy, practice, and research, providing a starting point for more focused investigation into children’s health-related experiences in India.
{"title":"Children’s health-related experiences in India: A scoping review","authors":"Yi Wen Wang, Justine M. Behan, Sunny Jeong, Ramandeep Singh Arora, Franco Carnevale, A. Tsimicalis","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1004","url":null,"abstract":"Background & Objectives: The perspectives of children have becoming increasingly emphasized in healthcare research and practice in order to facilitate children’s inclusion, participation, and decision-making in matters related to their health. In India, however, little is known about children’s views regarding their health despite the various health challenges and ethical concerns they may face, such as poverty, malnutrition, and gender inequalities. The aim of this scoping review is to explore children’s health-related experiences from their own perspectives in India from 2000 to 2020. Methods: Five online databases were searched. Three independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion. Included texts were analyzed using thematic synthesis, which involved extracting and descriptively coding data, categorizing/grouping codes by similar topics, and comparing and contrasting topics to generate descriptive themes. The scoping review was reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Results: Fifty-two articles were included, and five descriptive themes were identified. The articles typically overlapped in themes, which related to children’s health-related experiences (n=38), emotions (n=19), and knowledge (n=15); the impact of illness on children’s lives (n=41); and children’s ability to communicate their needs (n=12). Interpretation & Conclusions: We identified the need to tailor research designs to better elicit children’s perspectives and provide comprehensive health education for children and families in India. This scoping review helped to highlight gaps in healthcare policy, practice, and research, providing a starting point for more focused investigation into children’s health-related experiences in India.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"19 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139236417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sarah Grech, Lara Khoury, Carolyn Ells, Esther SH Kang, Katherine Lan, Susan Joanne Wang
Welcome to the McGill Journal of Medicine (MJM) Let’s Talk LMCC Review. This podcast series was created to aid medical students studying for the Canadian Medical Council (MCC)’s licensing exam. Each episode is created based on specific LMCC objectives and is divided into two sections. In Section 1 we provide an overview of the topic with the help of experts in the field, followed by Section 2 where we review LMCC styled questions to help consolidate knowledge. In this episode, we welcome our expert advisor, Prof. Lara Khoury, an Associate Professor in the McGil Faculty of Law and Associate Member of McGill’s Institute for Health & Social Policy and Biomedical Ethics Unit, to speak on LMCC Objectives 121-4 Confidentiality and 121-5 Legal Systems. This episode was written by MJM Podcast Team members, Esther Kang, Sarah Grech, and Professor Lara Khoury.
欢迎来到麦吉尔医学杂志(MJM)“让我们谈谈LMCC评论”。这个播客系列是为了帮助医科学生学习加拿大医学委员会(MCC)的执照考试而创建的。每一集都是基于特定的LMCC目标创建的，并分为两个部分。在第1节中，我们将在该领域专家的帮助下概述该主题，然后在第2节中，我们将回顾LMCC风格的问题，以帮助巩固知识。在本期节目中，我们欢迎我们的专家顾问，麦吉尔法学院副教授、麦吉尔健康研究所副成员Lara Khoury教授。社会政策和生物医学伦理组，就LMCC目标121-4保密和121-5法律制度发言。这一集是由MJM播客团队成员Esther Kang, Sarah Grech和Lara Khoury教授编写的。
{"title":"Let’s Talk LMCC (S01E04): Legal, Ethical and Organizational Aspects of Medicine - Confidentiality and Legal Systems","authors":"Sarah Grech, Lara Khoury, Carolyn Ells, Esther SH Kang, Katherine Lan, Susan Joanne Wang","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1088","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the McGill Journal of Medicine (MJM) Let’s Talk LMCC Review. This podcast series was created to aid medical students studying for the Canadian Medical Council (MCC)’s licensing exam. Each episode is created based on specific LMCC objectives and is divided into two sections. In Section 1 we provide an overview of the topic with the help of experts in the field, followed by Section 2 where we review LMCC styled questions to help consolidate knowledge. In this episode, we welcome our expert advisor, Prof. Lara Khoury, an Associate Professor in the McGil Faculty of Law and Associate Member of McGill’s Institute for Health & Social Policy and Biomedical Ethics Unit, to speak on LMCC Objectives 121-4 Confidentiality and 121-5 Legal Systems. This episode was written by MJM Podcast Team members, Esther Kang, Sarah Grech, and Professor Lara Khoury.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135271255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amanda Sears, Carolyn Ells, Lara Khoury, Sarah Grech, Esther SH Kang, Katherine Lan, Susan Joanne Wang
Welcome to the McGill Journal of Medicine (MJM) Let’s Talk LMCC Review. This podcast series was created to aid medical students studying for the Canadian Medical Council (MCC)’s licensing exam. Each episode is created based on specific LMCC objectives and is divided into two sections. In Section 1 we provide an overview of the topic with the help of experts in the field, followed by Section 2 where we review LMCC styled questions to help consolidate knowledge. In this episode, we welcome our expert advisor, Dr. Carolyn Ells, a recently retired Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine at McGill, based at the Biomedical Ethics Unit, to speak on LMCC Objectives 121-1 Consent, 121-2 Truth Telling, and 121-3 Negligence. This episode was written by MJM Podcast Team members Amanda Sears and Esther Kang and Dr. Carolyn Ells.
{"title":"Let’s Talk LMCC (S01E03): Legal, Ethical and Organizational Aspects of Medicine - Consent, Truth Telling and Negligence","authors":"Amanda Sears, Carolyn Ells, Lara Khoury, Sarah Grech, Esther SH Kang, Katherine Lan, Susan Joanne Wang","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1087","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the McGill Journal of Medicine (MJM) Let’s Talk LMCC Review. This podcast series was created to aid medical students studying for the Canadian Medical Council (MCC)’s licensing exam. Each episode is created based on specific LMCC objectives and is divided into two sections. In Section 1 we provide an overview of the topic with the help of experts in the field, followed by Section 2 where we review LMCC styled questions to help consolidate knowledge. In this episode, we welcome our expert advisor, Dr. Carolyn Ells, a recently retired Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine at McGill, based at the Biomedical Ethics Unit, to speak on LMCC Objectives 121-1 Consent, 121-2 Truth Telling, and 121-3 Negligence. This episode was written by MJM Podcast Team members Amanda Sears and Esther Kang and Dr. Carolyn Ells.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135271127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Vincent Brissette, Laurence Poirier, Rami Massie, Colin Chalk, Fraser Moore
Background: Immunoglobulin supplies are limited; their access for patients diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) may have been difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted with CIDP patients (n=16, 68.8% female, mean age 60.4±11.3) recruited from three Montreal tertiary care institutions. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years old who were receiving immunoglobulin treatment as of March 1st, 2020. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire inquiring about changes in their immunoglobulin treatment during the pandemic and about their quality of life. Their charts were reviewed by an independent investigator. We used weighted chi-squared statistical tests and Cramer’s V correlation ratios to measure associations with treatment change. Results: Eighteen months after the pandemic started, 50% of patients were receiving the same treatment, 25% were receiving immunoglobulin treatment at a different frequency, 6.3% were receiving a different dose, 12.5% were receiving a different dose and frequency, and 6.3% were receiving a different treatment. Reasons associated with treatment change were worsening of neurological condition (18.8%; Cramer’s V=0.480; p-value=0.055), improvement of neurological condition (25%; Cramer’s V=0.577; p-value=0.021) and reduced availability of treatment (6.3%; Cramer’s V=0.258; p-value=0.302). There were no significant correlations between lower quality of life (p-value=0.323) or lower Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale score (p-value=0.574) and treatment change. Conclusion: Difficulty accessing immunoglobulin treatment was infrequent and not significantly associated with treatment change for CIDP patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A larger multicentre study across multiple sites might identify other treatment access problems resulting from the pandemic.
{"title":"Access to Immunoglobulin Treatment for CIDP Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Vincent Brissette, Laurence Poirier, Rami Massie, Colin Chalk, Fraser Moore","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.964","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.964","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Immunoglobulin supplies are limited; their access for patients diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) may have been difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted with CIDP patients (n=16, 68.8% female, mean age 60.4±11.3) recruited from three Montreal tertiary care institutions. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years old who were receiving immunoglobulin treatment as of March 1st, 2020. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire inquiring about changes in their immunoglobulin treatment during the pandemic and about their quality of life. Their charts were reviewed by an independent investigator. We used weighted chi-squared statistical tests and Cramer’s V correlation ratios to measure associations with treatment change. Results: Eighteen months after the pandemic started, 50% of patients were receiving the same treatment, 25% were receiving immunoglobulin treatment at a different frequency, 6.3% were receiving a different dose, 12.5% were receiving a different dose and frequency, and 6.3% were receiving a different treatment. Reasons associated with treatment change were worsening of neurological condition (18.8%; Cramer’s V=0.480; p-value=0.055), improvement of neurological condition (25%; Cramer’s V=0.577; p-value=0.021) and reduced availability of treatment (6.3%; Cramer’s V=0.258; p-value=0.302). There were no significant correlations between lower quality of life (p-value=0.323) or lower Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale score (p-value=0.574) and treatment change. Conclusion: Difficulty accessing immunoglobulin treatment was infrequent and not significantly associated with treatment change for CIDP patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A larger multicentre study across multiple sites might identify other treatment access problems resulting from the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134930966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Approach to: Elevated Intraocular Pressure","authors":"Nikhil Patil, David V. Dudok","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1023","url":null,"abstract":"N/A (\"Approach to\" article type)","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41717672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Infographics derived from the Nursing master's thesis work","authors":"Ingram School of Nursing","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v21i1.1074","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47540401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：