Releases Saturday 24 February 2001
No 7284 Volume 322

Please remember to credit the BMJ as source when publicising an
article and to tell your readers that they can read its full text on the
journal's web site (http://bmj.com).

If your story is posted on a website please include a link back to
the source BMJ article (URL's are given under titles).



(1) HOW PARENTS WERE TOLD THAT THEIR
UNBORN CHILD HAD AN EXTRA OR MISSING SEX
CHROMOSOME ± A MATTER OF CHANCE

(2) PATIENTS PREFER COMMUNICATION WITH
DOCTORS, RATHER THAN PRESCRIPTIONS

(3) COULD NURSE-LED CARE HELP TO UNBLOCK
NHS BEDS?




(1) HOW PARENTS WERE TOLD THAT THEIR
UNBORN CHILD HAD AN EXTRA OR MISSING SEX
CHROMOSOME ± A MATTER OF CHANCE

(What parents are told after prenatal diagnosis of a sex
chromosome abnormality: interview and questionnaire study)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7284/463

Some parents are given misleading information about the
condition when they are first informed that their unborn child
has a sex chromosome anomaly, finds a study in this week's
BMJ. These disturbing findings emphasise the need for
established protocols for communicating such results to
parents.

Abramsky and colleagues interviewed 29 health
professionals who had recently informed parents of a sex
chromosome anomaly in an apparently anatomically normal,
viable fetus. They found enormous variation between
different health professionals in what they knew, thought, and
told parents about specific sex chromosome anomalies.
Furthermore, some obstetric units have no established
protocol for communicating results to parents.

Although there were some examples of excellent counselling,
there were other examples of grossly inadequate or frankly
misleading information being given, say the authors. It is
essential for obstetric units to have an established protocol
for giving results and for all staff who communicate results to
parents to have accurate, up to date information about the
condition identified, they conclude.

Contact:

Lenore Abramsky, Senior Research Officer, Imperial
College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Northwick
Park, Harrow, UK
Email: l.abramsky@ic.ac.uk

(2) PATIENTS PREFER COMMUNICATION WITH
DOCTORS, RATHER THAN PRESCRIPTIONS

(Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to
consultation in primary care: observational study)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7284/468

People waiting to see their doctor would prefer a "patient
centred approach" to their consultation ± including good
communication, partnership with their doctor and health
promotion information - rather than an examination or a
prescription, finds a study in this week's BMJ.

A total of 824 patients in the waiting room of three doctors'
surgeries completed a pre- consultation questionnaire about
what they wanted the doctor to do in the consultation. Three
areas of patient preferences were identified: "communication"
including listening and exploring concerns, "partnership"
including discussion and mutual agreement about treatment,
and "health promotion" including how to stay healthy and
reduce the risks of future illness. Fewer (63%) wanted an
examination and only a quarter wanted a prescription.

Patients with a very strong preference for patient
centredness are those who are vulnerable either
psychosocially or because they are feeling particularly unwell
or worried, and doctors should be sensitive to those
patients, conclude the authors.

Contact:

Paul Little, MRC Clinician Scientist, Community Clinical
Sciences (Primary Medical Care Group), University of
Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, UK
Email: psl3@soton.ac.uk

(3) COULD NURSE-LED CARE HELP TO UNBLOCK
NHS BEDS?

(Therapeutic nursing or unblocking beds? A randomised
controlled trial of post-acute intermediate care unit)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7284/453

Transferring patients to a low technology unit, where nurses
rather than doctors manage recuperation after acute illness,
is a safe alternative to conventional care on a general medical
ward, finds a study in this week's BMJ. This approach may
also constitute an overall benefit for the NHS by unblocking
beds in community hospitals.

Steiner and colleagues randomly referred patients to care on
the nurse-led unit of Southampton University Hospitals Trust
or to usual post-acute care in the hospital. Length of stay,
patient function, and discharge to a more dependent living
arrangement was evaluated after six months.

Length of stay was 14.3 days longer in the nurse-led unit
than in general medical wards, but the difference dropped to
4.5 days and was no longer significant when transfers to
community hospitals were taken into account. No
differences were found in death, functional status, or living
arrangements at any time.

Nurse-led units are safe and do not shift service demands
from hospital to community, say the authors. Instead, they
seem to unblock beds in community hospitals - an important
finding, not reported elsewhere in the literature. If such units
are to become an effective part of the government's recent
commitment to intermediate care, assessment of local
responsibilities along the full continuum of care will be
needed, they conclude.

Contact:

Andrea Steiner, Research Associate Professor, University of
California, Santa Cruz, USA
Email: steiner@cats.ucsc.edu

Bronagh Walsh, School of Nursing & Midwifery, University
of Southampton, Southampton UK
Email: B.M.Walsh@soton.ac.uk


FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS

Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:

Public Affairs Division
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR
(contact: pressoffice@bma.org.uk)

and from:

the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
(http://www.eurekalert.org)