Search

Background: Hyponatremia occurring as a result of the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) is a common and potentially lethal complication in critically ill patients. Urea, by inducing renal water excretion and promoting sodium (Na) retention, has been well described as a treatment for chronic SIADH. However, there are limited data on its use for the treatment of SIADH as encountered in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We assessed the effects of urea administration for treatment of SIADH in ICU patients., Methods: Data from ICU patients treated with urea for SIADH between January 2000 and August 2010 were reviewed. The time courses of Na and urea concentrations were analyzed by variance analysis (ANOVA)., Results: Records from 24 patients were analyzed. The most common etiology of SIADH was neurological (18 patients). Before urea administration, the mean serum Na concentration was 124.8 ± 5.9 mEq/l. There was a significant increase in serum Na from the second day of treatment (131.4 ± 3.5 mEq/l, p < 0.001) and a normalization of mean serum Na by the fourth day (136.2 ± 4.1 mEq/l, p < 0.001). The mean serum urea concentration also increased (from 29.8 ± 11.1 mg/dl before urea to 57.6 ± 24.0 mg/dl on the first day of treatment, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Urea administration appears useful for the treatment of SIADH-associated hyponatremia in critically ill patients. Prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Hip fractures represent an increasing public health burden with a simple fall to the floor as the most common cause. Because nursing home residents are particularly at risk, nursing homes should implement a broad range of fall prevention strategies. However, not all fall incidents can be avoided and external hip protectors may contribute to prevent hip fractures. A major problem in studying the effectiveness of hip protectors is residents' poor adherence. In nursing homes, adherence is dependent not only on the resident, but also on staff knowledge of and attitudes about hip protectors., Objectives: To describe (1) attitudes of day versus night shift caregivers towards the use of a soft hip protector, (2) residents' adherence about the use of such protectors, and (3) differences in characteristics between adherent and non-adherent residents., Design: Survey and observational study., Setting: Nursing home., Participants/methods: : Survey of care staff (n=37) in a nursing home after 8 months of continued application of a soft hip protector policy in residents (n=68). Adherence to wearing the hip protector, measured by weekly unannounced, randomly determined checks during day and night in the 8 months after the start of the study., Results: Overall, 85% agreed to wear a hip protector. At 8 months, only 29% was still wearing their hip protector; with significant differences between day and night shifts. Although virtually all caregivers (97%) considered a hip protector policy in residential care as feasible, the attitude towards hip protectors was found to be significantly different between day and night caregivers. Pain and discomfort, patient insight in the usefulness of these devices, interference with incontinence materials, and the overall resident mix and care acuity were reported as major barriers., Conclusion: Implementing a hip protector policy for injury prevention in long-term care is not an issue of whether or not to use the devices. Rather, it is a continued clinical nursing decision process about when and when not, by whom and by whom not, why and why not, for how long, and to what clinical benefit--considering both the needs of the individual resident and the feasibility of such a policy in the context of resident mix and nursing staff., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine the characteristics and the effectiveness of hospital fall prevention programs., Design: Systematic literature search of multiple databases (Medline, Cinahl, Precinahl, Invert, the Cochrane Library) and of the reference list of each identified publication., Setting: Inclusion of prospective controlled-design studies reporting the effectiveness of fall prevention programs in hospitals., Participants: Two reviewers., Measurements: The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed based on 10 criteria. For the meta-analysis, the relative risk of a fall per occupied bed day (RR(fall)) and the relative risk of being a faller (RR(faller)) were calculated., Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, of which four studies tested multifactorial interventions. Although these studies took place in hospitals, most were conducted on long-stay (mean length of stay (LOS) >1.5 years) and rehabilitation units (mean LOS 36.9 days). For analysis of the number of falls, one unifactorial and two multifactorial studies showed a significant reduction of 30% to 49% in the intervention group, with the greatest effect obtained in the unifactorial study that assessed a pharmacological intervention. The pooled RR(fall) for the four multifactorial studies became nonsignificant after adjustment for clustering (RR(fall)=0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.65-1.03). No studies reported a significant reduction, either single or pooled, in the number of fallers in the intervention group (pooled RR(faller)-0.87, 95% CI=0.70-1.08)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis found no conclusive evidence that hospital fall prevention programs can reduce the number of falls or fallers, although more studies are needed to confirm the tendency observed in the analysis of individual studies that targeting a patient's most important risk factors for falls actively helps in reducing the number of falls. These interventions seem to be useful only on long-stay care units.