Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)

An approach to business problems,

"5th impression of 1000 copies, May, 1920."Mode of access: Internet

The Magazine of business.

Editors: Dec. 1900?-Oct. 1928, A.W. Shaw; Nov. 1928-Aug. 1929, E.J. Mehren.Mode of access: Internet

Some problems in market distribution,

Mode of access: Internet

Lay health workers in primary and community health care.

BACKGROUND: Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. However, little is known about the effectiveness of LHW interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on health care behaviours, patients' health and wellbeing, and patients' satisfaction with care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and Consumers and Communication specialised registers (to August 2001); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to August 2001); MEDLINE (1966- August 2001); EMBASE (1966-August 2001); Science Citations (to August 2001); CINAHL (1966-June 2001); Healthstar (1975-2000); AMED (1966-August 2001); the Leeds Health Education Effectiveness Database and the reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to promote health, manage illness or provide support to patients. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to health care delivery; trained in some way in the context of the intervention; and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificated or degreed tertiary education. There were no restrictions on the types of consumers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto a standard form and assessed study quality. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the results of included studies were combined and an estimate of effect obtained. MAIN RESULTS: Forty three studies met the inclusion criteria, involving more than 210,110 consumers. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content and outcomes of interventions. Most were conducted in high income countries (n=35), but nearly half of these focused on low income and minority populations (n=15). Study diversity limited meta-analysis to outcomes for five subgroups (n=15 studies) (LHW interventions to promote the uptake of breast cancer screening, immunisation and breastfeeding promotion [before two weeks and between two weeks and six months post partum] and to improve diagnosis and treatment for selected infectious diseases). Promising benefits in comparison with usual care were shown for LHW interventions to promote immunisation uptake in children and adults (RR=1.30 [95% CI 1.14, 1.48] p=0.0001) and LHW interventions to improve outcomes for selected infectious diseases (RR=0.74 [95% CI 0.58, 0.93) p=0.01). LHWs also appear promising for breastfeeding promotion. They appear to have a small effect in promoting breast cancer screening uptake when compared with usual care. For the remaining subgroups (n=29 studies), the outcomes were too diverse to allow statistical pooling. We can therefore draw no general conclusions on the effectiveness of these subgroups of interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LHWs show promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and improving outcomes for acute respiratory infections and malaria, when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to justify recommendations for policy and practice. There is also insufficient evidence to assess which LHW training or intervention strategies are likely to be most effective. Further research is needed in these areas