Improving Medical Emergency Team Response Time for Urgent Care Patients in Primary Health Care Centers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background: Emergency healthcare systems are of increasing concern in international healthcare developments and the global fight against the burdens of disease. Concerns about focusing on ambulance response time as a single indicator are addressed by showing a case-sensitive approach for developing emergency health care systems that in return can identify ambulance response as the main indicator for a particular system. Problem description: Data collected by monitoring the time of receiving the call at the ambulance division until transport time.Methods: The fishbone diagram is used as a tool for understanding the process variation, investigate and eliminating unusual occurrences by the following methodology: M.M.M.Main outcomes: Responding time in emergency cases not exceeding 5 minutes; To improve responding time; To improve types of communication; To improve compliance with the logbook of the emergency referred cases. The intervention plan was Continuous Training for the staff and Clear Guidelines for emergency calls. Review and assess the actual implementation of the project. Data will be collected by an Emergency Medical specialist. A copy of the data should be sent to CQI for a continuous monitoring process. Check the data for process improvement (incident report analysis). Document the results of the change. Modify the change, if necessary and possible. The Emergency Medical Technicians quality coordinator will check the Data. Continue improvement by close monitoring of the compliance.Results: the mean response time dropped from 15 minutes in January 2023 to less than 5 minutes in December 2023.Conclusion: this initiative positively impacts the emergency team's response time and improves patient satisfaction. Response time reduction was evident, and the quality of the health care service was improved. Reduction of response time also improved emergency preparednes

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Global 30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Primary Bariatric Surgery Combined with Another Procedure: The BLEND Study

Background: No robust data are available on the safety of primary bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) alone compared to primary BMS combined with other procedures. Objectives: The objective of this study is to collect a 30-day mortality and morbidity of primary BMS combined with cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, or hiatal hernia repair. Setting: This is as an international, multicenter, prospective, and observational audit of patients undergoing primary BMS combined with one or more additional procedures. Methods: The audit took place from January 1 to June 30, 2022. A descriptive analysis was conducted. A propensity score matching analysis compared the BLEND study patients with those from the GENEVA cohort to obtain objective evaluation between combined procedures and primary BMS alone. Results: A total of 75 centers submitted data on 1036 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy was the most commonly primary BMS (N = 653, 63%), and hiatal hernia repair was the most commonly concomitant procedure (N = 447, 43.1%). RYGB accounted for the highest percentage (20.6%) of a 30-day morbidity, followed by SG (10.5%). More than one combined procedures had the highest morbidities among all combinations (17.1%). Out of overall 134 complications, 129 (96.2%) were Clavien-Dindo I–III, and 4 were CD V. Patients who underwent a primary bariatric surgery combined with another procedure had a pronounced increase in a 30-day complication rate compared with patients who underwent only BMS (12.7% vs. 7.1%). Conclusion: Combining BMS with another procedure increases the risk of complications, but most are minor and require no further treatment. Combined procedures with primary BMS is a viable option to consider in selected patients following multi-disciplinary discussion. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.) © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024

Co-infection and ICU-acquired infection in COIVD-19 ICU patients: a secondary analysis of the UNITE-COVID data set

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented major challenges for critical care facilities worldwide. Infections which develop alongside or subsequent to viral pneumonitis are a challenge under sporadic and pandemic conditions; however, data have suggested that patterns of these differ between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitides. This secondary analysis aimed to explore patterns of co-infection and intensive care unit-acquired infections (ICU-AI) and the relationship to use of corticosteroids in a large, international cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients.Methods: This is a multicenter, international, observational study, including adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to ICUs at the peak of wave one of COVID-19 (February 15th to May 15th, 2020). Data collected included investigator-assessed co-infection at ICU admission, infection acquired in ICU, infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and antibiotic use. Frequencies were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U test. Propensity score matching for variables associated with ICU-acquired infection was undertaken using R library MatchIT using the "full" matching method.Results: Data were available from 4994 patients. Bacterial co-infection at admission was detected in 716 patients (14%), whilst 85% of patients received antibiotics at that stage. ICU-AI developed in 2715 (54%). The most common ICU-AI was bacterial pneumonia (44% of infections), whilst 9% of patients developed fungal pneumonia; 25% of infections involved MDRO. Patients developing infections in ICU had greater antimicrobial exposure than those without such infections. Incident density (ICU-AI per 1000 ICU days) was in considerable excess of reports from pre-pandemic surveillance. Corticosteroid use was heterogenous between ICUs. In univariate analysis, 58% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 43% of those not receiving steroids developed ICU-AI. Adjusting for potential confounders in the propensity-matched cohort, 71% of patients receiving corticosteroids developed ICU-AI vs 52% of those not receiving corticosteroids. Duration of corticosteroid therapy was also associated with development of ICU-AI and infection with an MDRO.Conclusions: In patients with severe COVID-19 in the first wave, co-infection at admission to ICU was relatively rare but antibiotic use was in substantial excess to that indication. ICU-AI were common and were significantly associated with use of corticosteroids

Clinical and organizational factors associated with mortality during the peak of first COVID-19 wave : the global UNITE-COVID study

Purpose To accommodate the unprecedented number of critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) expansion of the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) to clinical areas not previously used for critical care was necessary. We describe the global burden of COVID-19 admissions and the clinical and organizational characteristics associated with outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods Multicenter, international, point prevalence study, including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. Results 4994 patients from 280 ICUs in 46 countries were included. Included ICUs increased their total capacity from 4931 to 7630 beds, deploying personnel from other areas. Overall, 1986 (39.8%) patients were admitted to surge capacity beds. Invasive ventilation at admission was present in 2325 (46.5%) patients and was required during ICU stay in 85.8% of patients. 60-day mortality was 33.9% (IQR across units: 20%-50%) and ICU mortality 32.7%. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were associated with increased mortality. These associations were also confirmed specifically in mechanically ventilated patients. Admission to surge capacity beds was not associated with mortality, even after controlling for other factors. Conclusions ICUs responded to the increase in COVID-19 patients by increasing bed availability and staff, admitting up to 40% of patients in surge capacity beds. Although mortality in this population was high, admission to a surge capacity bed was not associated with increased mortality. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and AKI were identified as the strongest predictors of mortality