Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Training in psychiatry throughout Europe

Contains fulltext : 168241.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Psychiatry is the largest medical specialty in Europe. Despite efforts to bring harmonisation, training in psychiatry in Europe continues to be very diverse. The Union Europeenne des Medecins Specialistes (UEMS) has issued as from 2000 a charter of requirements for the training in psychiatry with an additional European Framework for Competencies in Psychiatry in 2009. Yet these have not been implemented throughout Europe. In this paper, the diversity in training throughout Europe is approached from different angles: the cultural differences between countries with regards to how mental health care is considered and founded on, the cultural differences between people throughout Europe in all states. The position of psychotherapy is emphasised. What once was the cornerstone of psychiatry as medical specialty seems to have become a neglected area. Seeing the patient with mental health problems within his cultural context is important, but considering him within his family context. The purpose of any training is enabling the trainee to gain the knowledge and acquire the competencies necessary to become a well-equipped professional is the subject of the last paragraph in which trainees consider their position and early career psychiatrists look back to see whether what they were trained in matches with what they need in the working situation. Common standard for training and certification are a necessity within Europe, for the benefit of the profession of psychiatrist but also for patient safety. UEMS is advised to join forces with the Council of National Psychiatric Associations (NPAs) within the EPA and trainings and early career psychiatrist, to discuss with the users what standards should be implemented in all European countries and how a European board examination could ensure professional quality of psychiatrists throughout the continent

Seasonal Variations of Indoor Microbial Exposures and Their Relation to Temperature, Relative Humidity, and Air Exchange Rate

Indoor microbial exposure has been related to adverse pulmonary health effects. Exposure assessment is not standardized, and various factors may affect the measured exposure. The aim of this study was to investigate the seasonal variation of selected microbial exposures and their associations with temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rates in Danish homes. Airborne inhalable dust was sampled in five Danish homes throughout the four seasons of 1 year (indoors, n = 127; outdoors, n = 37). Measurements included culturable fungi and bacteria, endotoxin, N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase, total inflammatory potential, particles (0.75 to 15 μm), temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rates. Significant seasonal variation was found for all indoor microbial exposures, excluding endotoxin. Indoor fungi peaked in summer (median, 235 CFU/m3) and were lowest in winter (median, 26 CFU/m3). Indoor bacteria peaked in spring (median, 2,165 CFU/m3) and were lowest in summer (median, 240 CFU/m3). Concentrations of fungi were predominately higher outdoors than indoors, whereas bacteria, endotoxin, and inhalable dust concentrations were highest indoors. Bacteria and endotoxin correlated with the mass of inhalable dust and number of particles. Temperature and air exchange rates were positively associated with fungi and N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase and negatively with bacteria and the total inflammatory potential. Although temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rates were significantly associated with several indoor microbial exposures, they could not fully explain the observed seasonal variations when tested in a mixed statistical model. In conclusion, the season significantly affects indoor microbial exposures, which are influenced by temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rates.</p