13 research outputs found

    E-learning in advanced life support--an evaluation by the Resuscitation Council (UK).

    Get PDF
    AIM To descriptively analyse the outcomes following the national roll out of an e-Learning advanced life support course (e-ALS) compared to a conventional 2-day ALS course (c-ALS). METHOD Between 1st January 2013 and 30th June 2014, 27,170 candidates attended one of the 1350 Resuscitation Council (UK) ALS courses across the UK. 18,952 candidates were enrolled on a c-ALS course and 8218 on an e-ALS course. Candidates participating in the e-ALS course completed 6-8h of online e-Learning prior to attending the 1 day modified face-to-face course. Candidates participating in the c-ALS course undertook the Resuscitation Council (UK) 2-day face-to-face course. All candidates were assessed by a pre- and post-course MCQ and a practical cardiac arrest simulation (CAS-test). Demographic data were collected in addition to assessment outcomes. RESULTS Candidates on the e-ALS course had higher scores on the pre-course MCQ (83.7%, SD 7.3) compared to those on the c-ALS course (81.3%, SD 8.2, P<0.001). Similarly, they had slightly higher scores on the post-course MCQ (e-ALS 87.9%, SD 6.4 vs. c-ALS 87.4%, SD 6.5; P<0.001). The first attempt CAS-test pass rate on the e-ALS course was higher than the pass rate on the c-ALS course (84.6% vs. 83.6%; P=0.035). The overall pass rate was 96.6% on both the e-ALS and c-ALS courses (P=0.776). CONCLUSION The e-ALS course demonstrates equivalence to traditional face-to-face learning in equipping candidates with ALS skills when compared to the c-ALS course. Value is added when considering benefits such as increased candidate autonomy, cost-effectiveness, decreased instructor burden and improved standardisation of course material. Further dissemination of the e-ALS course should be encouraged

    Corrigendum to “European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Executive summary” [Resuscitation (2021) 1–60] (Resuscitation (2021) 161 (1–60), (S0300957221000551), (10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.003))

    No full text
    The authors regret that the list of the ERC 2021 Guidelines Collaborators which were included in Appendix A was incomplete. The complete list of collaborators is provided below: [Table presented] The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2021 The Author

    Critical care usage after major gastrointestinal and liver surgery: a prospective, multicentre observational study

    No full text
    Background Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and inter-centre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n=1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n=86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n=133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51–19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43–3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n=1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8–51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n=10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies

    Alternative and complementary medicine for asthma.

    No full text

    Trichloroethylene — a Review of the Literature From a Health Effects Perspective

    No full text

    Ausbildung und Implementierung der Reanimation

    No full text

    Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

    No full text
    Aim: Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a meta-analysis of all available prospective data. Methods: This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grades III-V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results: This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery for malignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49-2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions: In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease

    Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: A prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

    No full text
    Aim Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a metaanalysis of all available prospective data. Methods This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien–Dindo Grades III–V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery formalignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49–2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease
    corecore