Abstract:discharge more often. G. W. Brown and colleagues' studied cohorts of patients admitted to three London mental hospitals in 1951 and 1956. They found that the mean length of stay during a three-year follow-up period (including periods of readmission) decreased from 17 to 11 months, but that the proportion of them readmitted rose from 50% to 64%. The only national statistics available are for patients admitted for the first time, whose prognosis is better than those who have been in hospital before.2 In different areas there are large variations in readmission rate, the reasons for which are complex. Hospitals serving the London conurbation, for example, readmit a high proportion of discharged patients. A Medical Research Council surveys6 of schizophrenic patients discharged from eight London mental hospitals showed that return to hospital (which occurred in 42% of cases) could be predicted by factors such as a poor record of employment, severity of symptoms at discharge, unconstructive attitudes on the part of the patient, and an intense emotional relationship between the patient and a key member of his family when both were observed at a joint interview. Very few families received help from social workers or skilled advice about employment problems, and readmission to hospital usually followed a crisis in which the patient's abnormal behaviour could no longer be contained at home. In this study a high readmission rate reflected a high morbidity. The London services may have improved during the past few years, but the difficulties of providing good aftercare in a large conurbation remain considerable. Edinburgh may be setting a better example. There C. A. Renton and colleagues7 found that only 18% of schizophrenics were readmitted to hospital. Their employment records were much the same as in the London series, and in both cities there was a striking relationship between failure to continue medication and relapse. The clearest difference was in the proportion of patients who still had considerable symptoms at the time of discharge from hospital-59% in London and 45% in Edinburgh. This difference, together with shorter length of stay in hospital of the London group and better community facilities in Edinburgh, may perhaps explain the differences in the readmission rate. Several other workers have reported a rather low proportion of patients readmitted to hospital.810 But. many of these studies do not supply the kind of information necessary to evaluate the extent to which an administrative index like readmission rate reflects morbidity. Some preliminary results from another Medical Research Council study, in which schizophrenic patients admitted in 1956 to three mental hospitals were followed up for five years, show that differences in length of stay or readmission rate do not necessarily reflect differences in unemployment, abnormal behaviour at home, or relatives' problems.I' Even in the area where co-operation between local authority and mental hospital was greatest only about -half the seriously disturbed patients were in touch with community services. It can in fact be misleading of use such administrative indices as the main measures of morbidity, because it is much easier to prevent readmission than to prevent the abnormal behaviour which hitherto has made readmission necessary. Claims for various types of social or administrative treatment need to be examined critically. Though it is rarely possible to conduct controlled experiments in this field, systematic comparisons can be made.

Peritoneal dialysis for acute pancreatitis.

Taking Tissue Adhesives to the Future: from Traditional Synthetic to New Biomimetic Approaches

A Review on Approval and Registration Process of Medical Devices in Canada and India

Policies for responding to allegations of fraud in research

Review of U.S. Medical Device Regulation

Recent regulatory developments in EU Medical Device Regulation and their impact on biomaterials translation

Enabling Proregenerative Medical Devices via Citrate‐Based Biomaterials: Transitioning from Inert to Regenerative Biomaterials

Overview of the US FDA Medical Device Approval Process

The Difference between Approval Processes for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices in Europe

Regulation of Medical Devices and their Clinical Trials Studies in the USA: An Update

Bioadhesives in neurosurgery: a review

Regulation and Clinical Investigation of Medical Device in the European Union

Multifunctional Naturally Derived Bioadhesives: from Strategic Molecular Design toward Advanced Biomedical Applications

Bio-Based Adhesives for Orthopedic Applications: Sources, Preparation, Characterization, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

Evaluating the Safety Profile of Non-Active Implantable Medical Devices Compared with Medicines

Progress in Wound-Healing Products Based on Natural Compounds, Stem Cells, and MicroRNA-Based Biopolymers in the European, USA, and Asian Markets: Opportunities, Barriers, and Regulatory Issues

A review of bridging clinical studies between different presentations of biological products approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA)

Acknowledgment to reviewers—2012

Recent Advances in the Degradability and Applications of Tissue Adhesives Based on Biodegradable Polymers