Search

The anti-hypertensive effect of captopril 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, given once or twice daily, was investigated by 24 h monitoring in hypertensive patients in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial. Ten patients with blood pressure (BP) greater than 160 and/or 95 mm Hg after a 15 day placebo period, were randomly assigned to one of two treatments, in which they either received the combination once daily in the first month, twice daily in the second and once daily in the third (Treatment Group A) or twice daily in the first month, once daily in the second month and twice daily in the third month (Treatment Group B). The anti- hypertensive effect of the drug combination was assessed by 24 h monitoring using a Dinamap 845 to establish mean BP levels and circadian curves. After 1 month the twice daily administration was more effective than the once daily, but after 2 months, and throughout the third month, there was no difference in the anti-hypertensive efficacy of the combination given either once or twice daily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background For several decades, overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) has been intensifying due to the increased number of patients seeking care in EDs. Demand growth is partly due to misuse of EDs by patients who seek care for nonurgent problems. This study explores the reasons why people with nonurgent complaints choose to come to EDs, and how ED health professionals perceive the phenomenon of “nonurgency”. Results Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 10 EDs with 87 nonurgent patients and 34 health professionals. Interviews of patients revealed three themes: (1) fulfilled health care needs, (2) barriers to primary care providers (PCPs), and (3) convenience. Patients chose EDs as discerning health consumers: they preferred EDs because they had difficulties obtaining a rapid appointment. Access to technical facilities in EDs spares the patient from being overwhelmed with appointments with various specialists. Four themes were identified from the interviews of health professionals: (1) the problem of defining a nonurgent visit, (2) explanations for patients’ use of EDs for nonurgent complaints, (3) consequences of nonurgent visits, and (4) solutions to counter this tendency. Conclusions Studies on the underlying reasons patients opt for the ED, as well as on their decision-making process, are lacking. The present study highlighted discrepancies between the perceptions of ED patients and those of health professionals, with a special focus on patient behaviour. To explain the use of ED, health professionals based themselves on the acuity and urgency of medical problems, while patients focused on rational reasons to initiate care in the ED (accessibility to health care resources, and the context in which the medical problem occurred). In spite of some limitations due to the slightly outdated nature of our data, as well as the difficulty of categorizing nonurgent situations, our findings show the importance of conducting a detailed analysis of the demand for health care. Understanding it is crucial, as it is the main determining factor in the utilization of health care resources, and provides promising insights into the phenomenon of ED usage increase. For reforms to be successful, the process of decision-making for unscheduled patients will have to be thoroughly investigated.

Abstract Background For several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED. Methods We conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit. Results Of 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%). Conclusions The lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.

Abstract Background Overcrowding in emergency department (EDs) is partly due to the use of EDs by nonurgent patients. In France, the authorities responded to the problem by creating primary care units (PCUs): alternative structures located near hospitals. The aims of the study were to assess the willingness of nonurgent patients to be reoriented to a PCU and to collect the reasons that prompted them to accept or refuse. Methods We carried out a cross sectional survey on patients' use of EDs. The study was conducted in a French hospital ED. Patients were interviewed about their use of health services, ED visits, referrals, activities of daily living, and insurance coverage status. Patients' medical data were also collected. Results 85 patients considered nonurgent by a triage nurse were asked to respond to a questionnaire. Sex ratio was 1.4; mean age was 36.3 +/- 11.7 years. Most patients went to the ED autonomously (76%); one third (31.8%) had consulted a physician. The main reasons for using the ED were difficulty to get an appointment with a general practitioner (22.3%), feelings of pain (68.5%), and the availability of medical services in the ED, like imaging, laboratory tests, and drug prescriptions (37.6%). Traumatisms and wounds were the main medical reasons for going to the ED (43.5%). More than two-thirds of responders (68%) were willing to be reoriented towards PCUs. In the multivariate analysis, only employment and the level of urgency perceived by the patient were associated with the willingness to accept reorientation. Employed persons were 4.5 times more likely to accept reorientation (OR = 4.5 CI (1.6-12.9)). Inversely, persons who perceived a high level of urgency were the least likely to accept reorientation (OR = 0.9 CI (0.8-0.9). Conclusions Our study provides information on the willingness of ED patients to accept reorientation and shows the limits of its feasibility. Alternative structures such as PCUs near the ED seem to respond appropriately to the growing demands of nonurgent patients. Reorientation, however, will be successful only if the new structures adapt their opening hours to the needs of nonurgent patients and if their physicians can perform specific technical skills.

Abstract Background In the absence of a French health-related quality of life (QOL) instrument for renal transplant recipients (RTR), we developed a self-administered questionnaire: the ReTransQol (RTQ). Methods This questionnaire was developed using classical methodology in the following three phases over a two-year period: Item Generation phase, identifying all possible items having adverse impact on the QOL of RTR, Item Reduction phase, selecting the most pertinent items related to QOL, and Validation phase, analyzing the psychometric properties. All RTR involved in these phases were over 18 and were randomly selected from a transplant registry. Results Item generation was conducted through 24 interviews of RTR. The first version of RTQ (85 items) was sent to 225 randomized RTR, and 40 items were eliminated at the end of the item reduction phase. The second version of RTQ (45 items) was validated from 130 RTR, resulting in the RTQ final version. The factor analysis identified a structure of five factors: Physical Health (PH), Mental Health (MH), Medical Care (MC), Fear of losing the Graft (FG) and Treatment (TR). The psychometric properties of RTQ were satisfactory. Comparison between known groups from the literature confirmed the construct validity: patients without employment or living alone have lower QOL scores, and women have lower QOL scores than men. RTQ was more responsive than SF36 to detect changes in the QOL of RTR who were hospitalized secondary to their renal disease in the 4 weeks preceding their inclusion. Conclusion According to French public health priorities, RTQ appears to be a reliable and valid questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic events are increasingly recognised as an important problem in all people admitted to hospital. However, few epidemiological data are available for iatrogenic events in neonatal high-risk units. We aimed to assess the incidence, nature, preventability, and severity of iatrogenic events in a neonatal centre and to establish the association of patient characteristics with the occurrence of iatrogenic events in neonates. METHODS: We undertook an observational, prospective study from Jan 1, 2005, to Sept 1, 2005, including all neonates admitted in the Division of Neonatology of an academic, tertiary neonatal centre in southern France. Iatrogenic events were defined as any event that compromised the safety margin for the patient, in the presence or absence of harm. The report of an iatrogenic event was voluntary, anonymous, and non-punitive. The primary outcome was the rate of iatrogenic events per 1000 patient days. FINDINGS: A total of 388 patients were studied during 10 436 patient days. We recorded 267 iatrogenic events in 116 patients. The incidence of iatrogenic events was 25.6 per 1000 patient days. 92 (34%) were preventable and 78 (29%) were severe. Two iatrogenic events (1%) were fatal, but neither was preventable. The most severe iatrogenic events were nosocomial infections (49/62 [79%]) and respiratory events (nine of 26 [35%]). Cutaneous injuries were frequent (n=94) but generally minor (89 [95%]), as were medication errors (15/19 [76%]). Most medication errors occurred during administration stage (12/19 [63%]) and were ten-fold errors (nine of 19 [47%]). The major risk factors were low birthweight and gestational age (both p<0.0001), length of stay (p<0.0001), a central venous line (p<0.0001), mechanical ventilation (p=0.0021), and support with continuous positive airwary pressure (p=0.0076). INTERPRETATION: Iatrogenic events occur frequently and are often serious in neonates, especially in infants of low birthweight. Improved knowledge of the incidence and characteristics of iatrogenic events, and continuous monitoring could help to improve quality of health care for this vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]