To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study aimed to assess head and neck cancer patient satisfaction with the use of a touch-screen computer patient-completed questionnaire for assessing Adult Co-morbidity Evaluation 27 co-morbidity scores prior to treatment, along with its clinical reliability.
A total of 96 head and neck cancer patients were included in the audit. An accurate Adult Co-morbidity Evaluation 27 co-morbidity score was achieved via patient-completed questionnaire assessment for 97 per cent of participants.
In all, 96 per cent of patients found the use of a touch-screen computer acceptable and would be willing to use one again, and 62 per cent would be willing to do so without help. Patients were more likely to be willing to use the computer again without help if they were aged 65 years or younger (χ2 test; p = 0.0054) or had a performance status of 0 or 1 (χ2 test; p = 0.00034).
Use of a touch-screen computer is an acceptable approach for assessing Adult Co-morbidity Evaluation 27 scores at pre-treatment assessment in a multidisciplinary joint surgical–oncology clinic.
The use of nasal creams and ointments in the conservative management of anterior epistaxis is well documented and supported. This study set out to obtain a national opinion, in order to establish current practice.
A survey of all Scotland-based otolaryngology clinicians was conducted. Participants were asked which topical treatment they used in their practice, how often and for how long they advocated its use, and how they advised their patients to apply it.
The overall response rate was 91 per cent. We discuss and compare the varying responses for the questions posed, and discuss the possible reasons for these in greater detail.
This study demonstrates a high degree of variation in this practice, arising from a lack of concrete evidence and influenced by anecdotal experience and personal preferences. Definitive comparative studies are required if a ‘gold standard’ topical approach for the management of anterior epistaxis is to emerge.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.