Humans

All clinicians should maintain basic skills in general palliative care to help address the needs of patients and families. Because keeping up with the information provided by the growing palliative care literature can be challenging, we conducted a detailed search via Medline for palliative care articles published in 2020 in top peer-reviewed medical journals. Using a consensus-driven process of selection, we reviewed and summarized 11 articles to enhance knowledge of the practice-changing palliative care literature for general internists.

Background: Our ability to smell and taste is dictated by 3 chemosensory systems with distinct physiologic mechanisms - olfaction, gustation, and chemesthesis. Although often overlooked, dysfunction of these special senses may have broad implications on multiple facets of patients' lives -including safety, nutritional status, quality of life, mental health, and even cognitive function. As "loss of smell or taste" emerged as a common symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the importance of intact chemosensory function has been thrust into the spotlight. Despite the growing recognition of chemosensory dysfunction, this already highly prevalent condition will increasingly impact a larger and more diverse population, highlighting the need for improved awareness and care of these patients.

Methods: Comtemporary review of chemosensory function and assessments.

Conclusions: Although patient-reported chemosensory function measures highlight the ease of screening of chemosensory dysfunction, self-reported measures underestimate both the prevalence and degree of chemosensory dysfunction and do not adequately distinguish between olfaction, gustation, and chemesthesis. Meanwhile, psychophysical assessment tools provide opportunities for more accurate, thorough assessment of the chemosenses when appropriate. Primary care providers are uniquely situated to identify patients burdened by chemosensory dysfunction and raise patient and provider awareness about the importance of chemosensory dysfunction. Identification of chemosensory dysfunction, particularly olfactory dysfunction, may raise suspicion for many underlying medical conditions, including early detection of neurodegenerative conditions. Furthermore, identification and awareness of patients with chemosensory dysfunction may help primary care providers to identify those who may benefit from additional therapeutic and safety interventions, or consultations with specialists for more detailed evaluations and management.

Importance: Epilepsy affects approximately 65 million people worldwide. Persistent seizures are associated with a 20% to 40% risk of bodily injuries (eg, fractures, burns, concussions) over 12-month follow-up. The primary goal of epilepsy treatment is to eliminate seizures while minimizing adverse effects of antiseizure drugs (ASDs).

Observations: An epileptic seizure is defined as a sudden occurrence of transient signs and symptoms caused by abnormal and excessive or synchronous neuronal activity in the brain. Focal and generalized epilepsy are the 2 most frequent types of epilepsy; diagnosis is based on the type of seizures. There are 26 US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for epilepsy, of which 24 have similar antiseizure efficacy for focal epilepsy and 9 have similar efficacy for generalized epilepsy. The decision to initiate an ASD should be individualized, but should be strongly considered after 2 unprovoked seizures or after 1 unprovoked seizure that occurred during sleep and/or in the presence of epileptiform activity on an electroencephalogram and/or in the presence of a structural lesion on the brain magnetic resonance imaging. The ASDs must be selected based on the seizure and epilepsy types, the epilepsy syndrome, and the adverse effects associated with the drug. For focal epilepsy, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine are first-line therapy, while levetiracetam can be also considered if there is no history of psychiatric disorder. For generalized epilepsy, the selection of the ASD is based on the type of epilepsy syndrome and the patient's sex, age, and psychiatric history. Seizure freedom is achieved in approximately 60% to 70% of all patients. A total of 25% to 50% of patients also experience neurologic, psychiatric, cognitive, or medical disorders, such as mood, anxiety, and attention deficit disorders and migraines. For these patients, selecting an ASD should consider the presence of these disorders and concomitant use of medications to treat them. ASDs with cytochrome P450 enzyme-inducing properties (eg, carbamazepine, phenytoin) may worsen comorbid coronary and cerebrovascular disease by causing hyperlipidemia and accelerating the metabolism of concomitant drugs used for their treatment. They can also facilitate the development of osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Conclusions and relevance: Epilepsy affects approximately 65 million people worldwide and is associated with increased rates of bodily injuries and mortality when not optimally treated. For focal and generalized epilepsy, selection of ASDs should consider the seizure and epilepsy types and epilepsy syndrome, as well as the patient's age and sex, comorbidities, and potential drug interactions.

Background: On May 24, 2017, the Quebec College of Family Physicians held an innovation symposium inspired by the television show Dragons' Den, at which innovators pitched their innovations to Dragon-Facilitators (i.e., decision-makers) and academic family medicine clinical leads. We evaluated the effects of the symposium on the spread of primary health care innovations.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of the symposium. We collected data related to Rogers' innovation-decision process using 3 quality-improvement e-surveys (distributed between May 2017 and February 2018). The first survey evaluated spread outputs (innovation discovery, intention to spread, improvements) and was sent to all participants immediately after the symposium. The second evaluated short-term spread outcomes (follow-ups, successes, barriers) and was sent to innovators 3 months after the symposium. The third evaluated medium-term spread outcomes (spread, perceived impact) and was sent to innovators and clinical leads 9 months after the symposium. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, content analysis and joint display.

Results: Fifty-one innovators, 66 clinical leads (representing 42 clinics) and 37 Dragon-Facilitators attended the symposium. The response rates for the surveys were 61% (82/134) for the immediate post-symposium survey of all participants; 68% (21/31) for the 3-month survey of innovators; and 49% (48/97) for the 9-month survey of clinical leads and innovators. Immediately after the symposium, clinical leads and Dragon-Facilitators reported a high likelihood of adopting an innovation (mean ± standard deviation 8.02 ± 1.63 on a 10-point Likert scale) and 87% (53/61) agreed that they had discovered innovations at the symposium. Nearly all innovators (95%, 20/21) intended to follow up with potential adopters. After 3 months, 62% (13/21) of innovators had followed up in some way. After 9 months, 72% of clinical leads (18/25) had implemented at least 1 innovation, and 52% of innovators (12/23) had spread or were in the process of spreading innovations.

Interpretation: The innovation symposium supported participants in achieving the early stages of spreading primary health care innovations. Replicating such symposia may help spread other health care innovations.