Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment

GPRS, UMTS en medische apparatuur in het ziekenhui

Decision making in interhospital transport of critically ill patients: national questionnaire survey among critical care physicians

Objective: This study assessed the relative importance of clinical and transport-related factors in physicians' decision-making regarding the interhospital transport of critically ill patients. Methods: The medical heads of all 95 ICUs in The Netherlands were surveyed with a questionnaire using 16 case vignettes to evaluate preferences for transportability; 78 physicians (82%) participated. The vignettes varied in eight factors with regard to severity of illness and transport conditions. Their relative weights were calculated for each level of the factors by conjoint analysis and expressed in beta. The reference value (beta = 0) was defined as the optimal conditions for critical care transport; a negative beta indicated preference against transportability. Results: The type of escorting personnel (paramedic only: beta = 3.1) and transport facilities (standard ambulance beta = 1.21) had the greatest negative effect on preference for transportability. Determinants reflecting severity of illness were of relative minor importance (dose of noradrenaline beta = 0.6, arterial oxygenation beta = 0.8, level of peep beta = 0.6). Age, cardiac arrhythmia, and the indication for transport had no significant effect. Conclusions: Escorting personnel and transport facilities in interhospital transport were considered as most important by intensive care physicians in determining transportability. When these factors are optimal, even severely critically ill patients are considered able to undergo transport. Further clinical research should tailor transport conditions to optimize the use of expensive resources in those inevitable road trip

Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

Contains fulltext : 110505.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance. METHODS: Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates. RESULTS: Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00761813

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

TNF signalling in tooth development

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Nurses versus physician-led interhospital critical care transport: a randomized non-inferiority trial

Regionalization and concentration of critical care increases the need for interhospital transport. However, optimal staffing of ground critical care transport has not been evaluated. In this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint non-inferiority trial, critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation transported by interhospital ground critical care transport were randomized between transport staffed by a dedicated team comprising a critical care nurse and paramedic (nurses group) or a dedicated team including a critical care physician (nurses + physician group). The primary outcome was the number of patients with critical events, both clinical and technical, during transport. Clinical events included decrease in blood pressure, oxygen saturation, or temperature, blood loss, new cardiac arrhythmias, or death. Non-inferiority was assumed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference lies below the non-inferiority margin of 3 %. Of 618 eligible transported critically ill patients, 298 could be analyzed after randomization and allocation to the nurses group (n = 147) or nurses + physician group (n = 151). The percentages of patients with critical events were 16.3 % (24 incidents in 147 transports) in the nurses group and 15.2 % (23 incidents in 151 transports) in the nurses + physician group (difference 1.1 %, two-sided 90 % CI [-5.9 to 8.1]). Critical events occurred in both groups at a higher than the expected (0-1 %) rate. In the nurses group consultations for physician assistance were requested in 8.2 % (12 in 147 transports), all of which were performed prior to transport. The number of patients with critical events did not markedly differ between critical care transports staffed by a critical care nurse and paramedic compared to a team including a critical care physician. However, as a result of an unexpected higher rate of critical events in both groups recorded by an electronic health record, non-inferiority of nurse-led interhospital critical transport could not be established ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN39701540