Methoxyflurane Analgesia in Adult Patients in the Emergency Department: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study (STOP!)

<p><b>Article full text</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>The full text of this article can be found here<b>. </b><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0405-7">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0405-7</a></p><p></p> <p><br></p> <p><b>Provide enhanced content for this article</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact <a href="http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/”mailto:[email protected]”"><b>[email protected]</b></a>.</p> <p><br></p> <p>The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:</p> <p><br></p> <p>• Slide decks</p> <p>• Videos and animations</p> <p>• Audio abstracts</p> <p>• Audio slides</p

Agreement with statements relating to screening, brief advice, and referrals (SBIRT) by occupational group.

Agreement with statements relating to screening, brief advice, and referrals (SBIRT) by occupational group.</p

Example survey invitation.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to ascertain the views and experiences of those working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings towards screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, to inform future practice.ObjectivesTo explore i) views towards health promotion, ii) views towards and practice of SBIRT, iii) facilitators and barriers to delivering SBIRT, iv) training needs to support future SBIRT practice, and v) comparisons in views and attitudes between demographic characteristics, geographical regions, setting and occupational groups.MethodsThis was an open cross-sectional international survey, using an online self-administered questionnaire with closed and open-ended responses. Participants were ≥18 years of age, from any occupational group, working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings in any country or region.ResultsThere were 362 respondents (aged 21–65 years, 87.8% shift workers) from 7 occupational groups including physicians (48.6%), nurses (22.4%) and advanced clinical practitioners (18.5%). Most believed that health promotion is part of their role, and that SBIRT for alcohol prevention is needed and appropriate in UEC settings. SBIRT was seen to be acceptable to patients. 66% currently provide brief alcohol advice, but fewer screen for alcohol problems or make alcohol-related referrals. The most common barriers were high workload and lack of funding for prevention, lack of knowledge and training on SBIRT, lack of access to high-quality resources, lack of timely referral pathways, and concerns about patient resistance to advice. Some views and attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics, occupation, setting or region.ConclusionsUEC workers are willing to engage in SBIRT for alcohol prevention but there are challenges to implementation in UEC environments and concerns about workload impacts on already-burdened staff, particularly in the context of global workforce shortages. UEC workers advocate for clear guidelines and policies, increased staff capacity and/or dedicated health promotion teams onsite, SBIRT education/training/resources, appropriate physical spaces for SBIRT conversations and improved alcohol referral pathways to better funded services. Implementation of SBIRT could contribute to improving population health and reducing service demand, but it requires significant and sustained commitment of time and resources for prevention across healthcare organisations.</div

Key views, practices, barriers, and enablers of SBIRT.

Key views, practices, barriers, and enablers of SBIRT.</p

Descriptive characteristics of participants.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to ascertain the views and experiences of those working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings towards screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, to inform future practice.ObjectivesTo explore i) views towards health promotion, ii) views towards and practice of SBIRT, iii) facilitators and barriers to delivering SBIRT, iv) training needs to support future SBIRT practice, and v) comparisons in views and attitudes between demographic characteristics, geographical regions, setting and occupational groups.MethodsThis was an open cross-sectional international survey, using an online self-administered questionnaire with closed and open-ended responses. Participants were ≥18 years of age, from any occupational group, working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings in any country or region.ResultsThere were 362 respondents (aged 21–65 years, 87.8% shift workers) from 7 occupational groups including physicians (48.6%), nurses (22.4%) and advanced clinical practitioners (18.5%). Most believed that health promotion is part of their role, and that SBIRT for alcohol prevention is needed and appropriate in UEC settings. SBIRT was seen to be acceptable to patients. 66% currently provide brief alcohol advice, but fewer screen for alcohol problems or make alcohol-related referrals. The most common barriers were high workload and lack of funding for prevention, lack of knowledge and training on SBIRT, lack of access to high-quality resources, lack of timely referral pathways, and concerns about patient resistance to advice. Some views and attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics, occupation, setting or region.ConclusionsUEC workers are willing to engage in SBIRT for alcohol prevention but there are challenges to implementation in UEC environments and concerns about workload impacts on already-burdened staff, particularly in the context of global workforce shortages. UEC workers advocate for clear guidelines and policies, increased staff capacity and/or dedicated health promotion teams onsite, SBIRT education/training/resources, appropriate physical spaces for SBIRT conversations and improved alcohol referral pathways to better funded services. Implementation of SBIRT could contribute to improving population health and reducing service demand, but it requires significant and sustained commitment of time and resources for prevention across healthcare organisations.</div

Questionnaire survey.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to ascertain the views and experiences of those working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings towards screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, to inform future practice.ObjectivesTo explore i) views towards health promotion, ii) views towards and practice of SBIRT, iii) facilitators and barriers to delivering SBIRT, iv) training needs to support future SBIRT practice, and v) comparisons in views and attitudes between demographic characteristics, geographical regions, setting and occupational groups.MethodsThis was an open cross-sectional international survey, using an online self-administered questionnaire with closed and open-ended responses. Participants were ≥18 years of age, from any occupational group, working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings in any country or region.ResultsThere were 362 respondents (aged 21–65 years, 87.8% shift workers) from 7 occupational groups including physicians (48.6%), nurses (22.4%) and advanced clinical practitioners (18.5%). Most believed that health promotion is part of their role, and that SBIRT for alcohol prevention is needed and appropriate in UEC settings. SBIRT was seen to be acceptable to patients. 66% currently provide brief alcohol advice, but fewer screen for alcohol problems or make alcohol-related referrals. The most common barriers were high workload and lack of funding for prevention, lack of knowledge and training on SBIRT, lack of access to high-quality resources, lack of timely referral pathways, and concerns about patient resistance to advice. Some views and attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics, occupation, setting or region.ConclusionsUEC workers are willing to engage in SBIRT for alcohol prevention but there are challenges to implementation in UEC environments and concerns about workload impacts on already-burdened staff, particularly in the context of global workforce shortages. UEC workers advocate for clear guidelines and policies, increased staff capacity and/or dedicated health promotion teams onsite, SBIRT education/training/resources, appropriate physical spaces for SBIRT conversations and improved alcohol referral pathways to better funded services. Implementation of SBIRT could contribute to improving population health and reducing service demand, but it requires significant and sustained commitment of time and resources for prevention across healthcare organisations.</div

STROBE checklist.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to ascertain the views and experiences of those working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings towards screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, to inform future practice.ObjectivesTo explore i) views towards health promotion, ii) views towards and practice of SBIRT, iii) facilitators and barriers to delivering SBIRT, iv) training needs to support future SBIRT practice, and v) comparisons in views and attitudes between demographic characteristics, geographical regions, setting and occupational groups.MethodsThis was an open cross-sectional international survey, using an online self-administered questionnaire with closed and open-ended responses. Participants were ≥18 years of age, from any occupational group, working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings in any country or region.ResultsThere were 362 respondents (aged 21–65 years, 87.8% shift workers) from 7 occupational groups including physicians (48.6%), nurses (22.4%) and advanced clinical practitioners (18.5%). Most believed that health promotion is part of their role, and that SBIRT for alcohol prevention is needed and appropriate in UEC settings. SBIRT was seen to be acceptable to patients. 66% currently provide brief alcohol advice, but fewer screen for alcohol problems or make alcohol-related referrals. The most common barriers were high workload and lack of funding for prevention, lack of knowledge and training on SBIRT, lack of access to high-quality resources, lack of timely referral pathways, and concerns about patient resistance to advice. Some views and attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics, occupation, setting or region.ConclusionsUEC workers are willing to engage in SBIRT for alcohol prevention but there are challenges to implementation in UEC environments and concerns about workload impacts on already-burdened staff, particularly in the context of global workforce shortages. UEC workers advocate for clear guidelines and policies, increased staff capacity and/or dedicated health promotion teams onsite, SBIRT education/training/resources, appropriate physical spaces for SBIRT conversations and improved alcohol referral pathways to better funded services. Implementation of SBIRT could contribute to improving population health and reducing service demand, but it requires significant and sustained commitment of time and resources for prevention across healthcare organisations.</div

Current practices and experiences of alcohol referral.

Current practices and experiences of alcohol referral.</p

Barriers to delivering SBIRT in UEC settings.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to ascertain the views and experiences of those working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings towards screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, to inform future practice.ObjectivesTo explore i) views towards health promotion, ii) views towards and practice of SBIRT, iii) facilitators and barriers to delivering SBIRT, iv) training needs to support future SBIRT practice, and v) comparisons in views and attitudes between demographic characteristics, geographical regions, setting and occupational groups.MethodsThis was an open cross-sectional international survey, using an online self-administered questionnaire with closed and open-ended responses. Participants were ≥18 years of age, from any occupational group, working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings in any country or region.ResultsThere were 362 respondents (aged 21–65 years, 87.8% shift workers) from 7 occupational groups including physicians (48.6%), nurses (22.4%) and advanced clinical practitioners (18.5%). Most believed that health promotion is part of their role, and that SBIRT for alcohol prevention is needed and appropriate in UEC settings. SBIRT was seen to be acceptable to patients. 66% currently provide brief alcohol advice, but fewer screen for alcohol problems or make alcohol-related referrals. The most common barriers were high workload and lack of funding for prevention, lack of knowledge and training on SBIRT, lack of access to high-quality resources, lack of timely referral pathways, and concerns about patient resistance to advice. Some views and attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics, occupation, setting or region.ConclusionsUEC workers are willing to engage in SBIRT for alcohol prevention but there are challenges to implementation in UEC environments and concerns about workload impacts on already-burdened staff, particularly in the context of global workforce shortages. UEC workers advocate for clear guidelines and policies, increased staff capacity and/or dedicated health promotion teams onsite, SBIRT education/training/resources, appropriate physical spaces for SBIRT conversations and improved alcohol referral pathways to better funded services. Implementation of SBIRT could contribute to improving population health and reducing service demand, but it requires significant and sustained commitment of time and resources for prevention across healthcare organisations.</div

Diagnostic accuracy of the magnetocardiograph for patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND:We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the VitalScan magnetocardiograph (MCG) for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS:We undertook a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the MCG in adults with suspected ACS. The reference standard of ACS was determined by an independent adjudication committee based on 30-day investigations and events. The cohort was split into a training sample, to derive the MCG algorithm and an algorithm combining MCG with a modified Manchester Acute Coronary Syndrome (MACS) clinical probability score, and a validation sample, to estimate diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS:We recruited 756 participants and analysed data from 680 (293 training, 387 validation), of whom 96 (14%) had ACS. In the training sample, the respective area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were the following: MCG 0.66 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.74), MACS 0.64 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73) and MCG+MACS 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77). MCG specificity was 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.21) at the threshold achieving acceptable sensitivity for rule-out (>0.98). In the validation sample (n=387), the respective AUROCs were the following: MCG 0.56 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.64), MACS 0.69 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.77) and MCG+MACS 0.64 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.72). MCG sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.95) and specificity 0.15 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.20) at the rule-out threshold. MCG+MACS sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) and specificity 0.30 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.35). CONCLUSION:The VitalScan MCG is currently unable to accurately rule out ACS and is not yet ready for use in clinical practice. Further developmental research is required