Predictors of Successful Decannulation Using a Tracheostomy Retainer in Patients with Prolonged Weaning and Persisting Respiratory Failure

Background: For percutaneously tracheostomized patients with prolonged weaning and persisting respiratory failure, the adequate time point for safe decannulation and switch to noninvasive ventilation is an important clinical issue. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a tracheostomy retainer (TR) and the predictors of successful decannulation. Methods: We studied 166 of 384 patients with prolonged weaning in whom a TR was inserted into a tracheostoma. Patients were analyzed with regard to successful decannulation and characterized by blood gas values, the duration of previous spontaneous breathing, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) and laboratory parameters. Results: In 47 patients (28.3%) recannulation was necessary, mostly due to respiratory decompensation and aspiration. Overall, 80.6% of the patients could be liberated from a tracheostomy with the help of a TR. The need for recannulation was associated with a shorter duration of spontaneous breathing within the last 24/48 h (p < 0.01 each), lower arterial oxygen tension (p = 0.025), greater age (p = 0.025), and a higher creatinine level (p = 0.003) and SAPS (p < 0.001). The risk for recannulation was 9.5% when patients breathed spontaneously for 19-24 h within the 24 h prior to decannulation, but 75.0% when patients breathed for only 0-6 h without ventilatory support (p < 0.001). According to ROC analysis, the SAPS best predicted successful decannulation {[}AUC 0.725 (95% CI: 0.634-0.815), p < 0.001]. Recannulated patients had longer durations of intubation (p = 0.046), tracheostomy (p = 0.003) and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In percutaneously tracheostomized patients with prolonged weaning, the use of a TR seems to facilitate and improve the weaning process considerably. The duration of spontaneous breathing prior to decannulation, age and oxygenation describe the risk for recannulation in these patients. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Evaluation of emergency department performance:A systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of emergency department (ED) performance remains a difficult task due to the lack of consensus on performance measures that reflects high quality, efficiency, and sustainability. AIM: To describe, map, and critically evaluate which performance measures that the published literature regard as being most relevant in assessing overall ED performance. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of review articles reporting accentuated ED performance measures was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Study eligibility criteria includes: 1) the main purpose was to discuss, analyse, or promote performance measures best reflecting ED performance, 2) the article was a review article, and 3) the article reported macro-level performance measures, thus reflecting an overall departmental performance level. RESULTS: A number of articles addresses this study’s objective (n = 14 of 46 unique hits). Time intervals and patient-related measures were dominant in the identified performance measures in review articles from US, UK, Sweden and Canada. Length of stay (LOS), time between patient arrival to initial clinical assessment, and time between patient arrivals to admission were highlighted by the majority of articles. Concurrently, “patients left without being seen” (LWBS), unplanned re-attendance within a maximum of 72 hours, mortality/morbidity, and number of unintended incidents were the most highlighted performance measures that related directly to the patient. Performance measures related to employees were only stated in two of the 14 included articles. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 55 ED performance measures were identified. ED time intervals were the most recommended performance measures followed by patient centeredness and safety performance measures. ED employee related performance measures were rarely mentioned in the investigated literature. The study’s results allow for advancement towards improved performance measurement and standardised assessment across EDs

Family members' experience with in-hospital health care after severe traumatic brain injury : a national multicentre study.

Background Family member’s experience and satisfaction of health care in the acute care and in-patient rehabilitation are important indicators of the quality of health care services provided to patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective was to assess family members’ experience of the health care provided in-hospital to patients with severe TBI, to relate experiences to family member and patient demographics, patients’ function and rehabilitation pathways. Methods Prospective national multicentre study of 122 family members of patients with severe TBI. The family experience of care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI) was applied. Independent sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the means between 2 or more groups. Paired samples t-tests were used to investigate differences between experience in the acute and rehabilitation phases. Results Best family members` experience were found regarding information during the acute phase, poorest scores were related to discharge. A significantly better care experience was reported in the acute phase compared with the rehabilitation phase (p &lt; 0.05). Worst family members` experience was related to information about consequences of the injury. Patient’s dependency level (p &lt; 0.05) and transferral to non-specialized rehabilitation were related to a worse family members` experience (p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions This study underscores the need of better information to family members of patients with severe TBI in the rehabilitation as well as the discharge phase. The results may be important to improve the services provided to family members and individuals with severe TBI

A national cross-sectional survey of public perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic: Self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to mitigate the global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have largely relied on broad compliance with public health recommendations yet navigating the high volume of evolving information can be challenging. We assessed self-reported public perceptions related to COVID-19 including, beliefs (e.g., severity, concerns, health), knowledge (e.g., transmission, information sources), and behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) to understand perspectives in Canada and to inform future public health initiatives. METHODS: We administered a national online survey aiming to obtain responses from 2000 adults in Canada. Respondent sampling was stratified by age, sex, and region. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and tested for regional differences using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression. RESULTS: We collected 1,996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. One-fifth (20%) of respondents knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, but few had tested positive themselves (0.6%). Negative impacts of pandemic conditions were evidenced in several areas, including concerns about healthcare (e.g. sufficient equipment, 52%), pandemic stress (45%), and worsening social (49%) and mental/emotional (39%) health. Most respondents (88%) felt they had good to excellent knowledge of virus transmission, and predominantly accessed (74%) and trusted (60%) Canadian news television, newspapers/magazines, or non-government news websites for COVID-19 information. We found high compliance with distancing measures (80% reported self-isolating or always physical distancing). We identified associations between region and self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: We found that information about COVID-19 is largely acquired through domestic news sources, which may explain high self-reported compliance with prevention measures. The results highlight the broader impact of a pandemic on the general public's overall health and wellbeing, outside of personal infection. The study findings should be used to inform public health communications during COVID-19 and future pandemics

How risky is caring for emergency patients at risk of malpractice litigation: a population based epidemiological study of Taiwan's experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Emergency medicine has generally been considered a high risk specialty. The purpose of this study is to assess the risk of being sued in the district courts for caring emergency room (ER) patients from the perspective of epidemiology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This research was designed to be a retrospective population based cohort study. We intended to find out the incidence of litigations arising from ER patients and that of birth inpatients in Taiwan, and computed their relative risks. The inclusion criterion was set to be incidents transpired in the time period of 1998 to 2002. The study materials included the reimbursement claim dataset of the National Health Insurance from 1998 to 2002, and the district court decision database of the Judicial Yuan from 1999 to 2006.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average annual incidence rate of becoming a plaintiff for ER patients is 0.86 per million, and for birth patients is 33.5 per million. There is a statistically significant difference between birth patients and ER patients. The relative risk comparing ER patients against birth inpatients is 0.03.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings of this population based study indicate that the patient population emergency physicians are facing in Taiwan have relatively lower risks of developing litigation in comparison with the patients that come to give birth. Due to the large volume of ER patients, malpractice still pose a major threat in the emergency department, and misdiagnosis remains the major complaint of plaintiffs in subsequent litigations.</p

Back to thiazide-diuretics for hypertension: reflections after a decade of irrational prescribing

BACKGROUND: Whether newer antihypertensive drugs, such as calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and α blockers are more effective than thiazides and β blockers in preventing coronary disease, has been debated for years. DISCUSSION: Recently several trials addressing this issue have been finalised, and they provide a convincing answer: the newer drugs are no better than the older ones. In the largest trial to date (ALLHAT), thiazide-type diuretic was found to offer advantages over newer drugs. The medical community should now be capable of reaching consensus, and recommend thiazides as the first line therapy for the treatment of hypertension. Prescribing physicians, cardiologists, drug companies and health authorities are all partly responsible for the years of irrational prescribing that we have witnessed. SUMMARY: All stakeholders should now contribute in order to achieve what is clearly in the public's interest: implementing the use of thiazides in clinical practice