Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Medicine Network (medicine + network)
Selected AbstractsProspective Multicenter Study of the Viral Etiology of Bronchiolitis in the Emergency DepartmentACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 2 2008Jonathan M. Mansbach MD Abstract Objectives:, To determine the viral etiology of bronchiolitis and clinical characteristics of children age < 2 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) with bronchiolitis. Methods:, The authors conducted a 14-center prospective cohort study during 2005,2006 of ED patients age < 2 years with bronchiolitis. The study was conducted in 10 states as part of the Emergency Medicine Network. Researchers collected nasopharyngeal aspirates and conducted structured interviews, medical record reviews, and 2-week follow-up telephone calls. Samples were tested using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), rhinovirus (RV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), and influenza viruses (Flu). Results:, Testing of 277 samples revealed 176 (64%) positive for RSV, 44 (16%) for RV, 26 (9%) for hMPV, 17 (6%) for Flu A, and none for Flu B. When children were categorized as RSV only, RV only, RV and RSV, and all others (hMPV, Flu, no identified virus), children with RV only were more likely to be African American (19, 62, 14, and 40%, respectively; p < 0.001) and have a history of wheezing (23, 52, 21, and 15%, respectively; p = 0.01). In multivariate models, children with RV were more likely to receive corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5 to 8.15). The duration of illness may be shorter for children with RV (Days 8, 3, 6, and 8; p = 0.07). Conclusions:, In this multicenter study, RSV was the most frequent cause of bronchiolitis (64%). RV was present in 16%, and these children have a distinct profile in terms of demographics, medical history, and ED treatment. [source] Availability of Rapid Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing in Academic Emergency DepartmentsACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 2 2008Peter D. Ehrenkranz MD Abstract Objectives:, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening of emergency department (ED) patients aged 13 to 64 years. The study objectives were to determine the accessibility of rapid HIV testing in academic EDs, to identify factors that influence an ED's adoption of testing, and to describe current HIV testing practices. Methods:, Online surveys were sent to EDs affiliated with emergency medicine (EM) residency programs (n = 128), excluding federal hospitals and facilities in U.S. territories. Eighty percent (n = 102) responded. Most e-mail recipients (n = 121) were Emergency Medicine Network (EMNet) investigators; remaining contacts were obtained from residency-related Web sites. Results:, Most academic EDs (n = 58; 57%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 47% to 66%) offer rapid HIV testing. Among this group, 26 (45%) allow providers to order tests without restrictions. Of the other 32 EDs, 100% have policies allowing for rapid HIV testing following occupational exposures, but less than 10% have guidelines for testing in other clinical situations. Forty-seven percent expect to routinely offer HIV testing in the next 2 to 3 years. Only 59% of the EDs that offered rapid tests in any situation could link an HIV-positive patient to subspecialty care. The facility characteristic most important to availability of rapid HIV testing was the presence of on-site HIV counselors. Conclusions:, Most academic EDs now offer rapid HIV testing (57%), but few use it in situations other than occupational exposure. Less than half of academic EDs expect to implement CDC guidelines regarding routine screening within the next few years. The authors identified facility characteristics (e.g., counseling, ability to refer) that may influence adoption of rapid HIV testing. [source] The National Emergency Department Safety Study: Study Rationale and DesignACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 12 2007Ashley F. Sullivan MS The significance of medical errors is widely appreciated. Given the frequency and significance of errors in medicine, it is important to learn how to reduce their frequency; however, the identification of factors that increase the likelihood of errors poses a considerable challenge. The National Emergency Department Safety Study (NEDSS) sought to characterize organizational- and clinician-associated factors related to the likelihood of errors occurring in emergency departments (EDs). NEDSS was a large multicenter study coordinated by the Emergency Medicine Network (EMNet; www.emnet-usa.org). It was designed to determine if reports by ED personnel about safety processes are significantly correlated with the actual occurrence of errors in EDs. If so, staff reports can be used to accurately identify processes for safety improvements. Staff perceptions were assessed with a survey, while errors were assessed through chart review of three conditions: acute myocardial infarction, acute asthma, and reductions of dislocations under procedural sedation. NEDSS also examined the characteristics of EDs associated with the occurrence of errors. NEDSS is the first comprehensive national study of the frequency and types of medical errors in EDs. This article describes the methods used to develop and implement the study. [source] Optimal timing and dosing of platelet transfusionsISBT SCIENCE SERIES: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTRACELLULAR TRANSPORT, Issue n1 2010N. M. Heddle Background, Over the past 20 years there have been more than 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated various aspects of platelet transfusion therapy in haematology/oncology patients. These studies have focused on the best platelet product, the importance of ABO compatibility, pathogen inactivation of platelets, platelet triggers and the optimal platelet dose. Aims, This article summarizes current evidence to support the timing and dosing of platelet transfusions and to explore some ideas of where clinical research in this area may be heading. Materials and Methods, The articles reviewed in this presentation were identified through a search of PubMed using the term, platelet transfusion and setting limits to identify clinical studies, human studies and manuscripts in English. Results and Discussion, Three RCTs have informed practices around platelet transfusion trigger with the largest study by Rebulla et al., being the primary study that has changed practices worldwide, with a move towards a lower prophylactic platelet transfusion trigger of 10 × 109/l. Two groups (Germany and Oxford, UK) are currently investigating whether we can push the boundaries of prophylactic platelet transfusions even further by eliminating this form of therapy. Preliminary results from these studies have been published but we will await the final results to determine whether this research will indeed change practice. Over the past year there has also been two major studies (one by the BEST Collaborative, and the second by the US Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Network), that provide new information to guide platelet dosing. The Study by the BEST Collaborative (SToP) compared low dose platelets to standard dose platelets with WHO bleeding greater than or equal to Grade 2 as the primary outcome. The US study (PLADO) compared three doses (low, medium and high) and measured the same outcome (WHO bleeding , Grade 2). Conclusions, Although all of these studies further our knowledge to prescribe platelet transfusions, they also raise some interesting questions about the clinical relevance of the outcomes that we are currently using for these studies. The trend over the past decade has been to use bleeding as the primary outcome; however, bleeding is a complex composite outcome (Grades 2, 3 and 4) comprised of some surrogate components (Grades 2 and 3). It is also an outcome that may be difficult to measure and grade in a consistent and reliable manner. The clinical relevance of this outcome is also complex and may vary depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. [source] | ||||||||||