Search

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including articles offering ideas and inspiration for teaching librarians, a report on an initiative at Stanford Libraries in the U.S., and another which reviews a range of information literacy measures.

Background: One third of organ donors suffer catastrophic brain injury (CBI). There are no standard guidelines for the management of traumatic CBI prior to brain death, and not all trauma centers have institutional CBI guidelines. In addition, there is high variability in management between institutions with guidelines. Catastrophic brain injury guidelines vary and may include various combinations of hormone therapy, vasopressors, fluid resuscitation, and other practices. We hypothesized that centers with CBI guidelines have higher organ donation rates than those without., Methods: This prospective, observational EAST-sponsored multicenter trial included adult (18+ years old) traumatic-mechanism CBI patients at 33 level I and II trauma centers from January 2022 to May 2023. Catastrophic brain injury was defined as a brain injury causing loss of function above the brain stem and subsequent death. Cluster analysis with linear mixed-effects model including UNOS regions and hospital size by bed count was used to determine whether CBI guidelines are associated with organ donation., Results: A total of 790 CBI patients were included in this analysis. In unadjusted comparison, CBI guideline centers had higher rates of organ donation and use of steroids, whole blood, and hormone therapy. In a linear mixed-effects model, CBI guidelines were not associated with organ donation. Registered organ donor status, steroid hormones, and vasopressin were associated with increased relative risk of donation., Conclusion: There is high variability in management of CBI, even at centers with CBI guidelines in place. While the use of institutional CBI guidelines was not associated with increased organ donation, guidelines in this study were not identical. Hormone replacement with steroids and vasopressin was associated with increased donation. Hormone resuscitation is a common feature of CBI guidelines. Further analysis of individual practices that increase organ donation after CBI may allow for more effective guidelines and an overall increase in donation to decrease the long waiting periods for organ transplant recipients., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level II., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is an ongoing debate on how to best identify patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) before bariatric surgery. The value of routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is questioned, and patient reported symptoms are commonly used for screening. The goal of this study is to determine if patient reported symptoms using a validated questionnaire correlate with preoperative EGD findings., Methodology: A prospective cohort study at a single institution was performed. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery between December 2020 and March 2023 were required to report symptoms of reflux by completing a preoperative GERD. Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire and undergo a mandatory preoperative screening EGD. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: (group A) asymptomatic (score = 0) and (group B) symptomatic (score > 0). Statistical analysis was conducted using Pearson's chi-squared test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test in RStudio version 4.2.2. The predictive value of the GERD-HRQL score was analyzed using Areas Under the Curve (AUC; AUC = 0.5 not predictive, 0.5 < AUC ≥ 6 poor prediction & AUC > 0.9 excellent prediction) calculated from Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves., Results: 200 patients were included; median age was 42.0 years (IQR 36.0 to 49.2). There were 79 patients (39.5%) in Group A and 121 patients (60.5%) in Group B. There was no difference in the frequency esophagitis (27.8% vs 32.2%, p = 0.61) or hiatal hernias (49.4% vs 47.1%, p = 0. 867) between group A and group B, respectively. ROC analysis revealed that the total GERD HRQL scores, heartburn only scores and regurgitation only scores, were poor predictors of esophagitis found on EGD (AUC 0.52, 0.53, 0.52), respectively. In asymptomatic patients, higher BMI was significantly associated with esophagitis (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.27, p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Symptoms, identified through the GERD-HRQL questionnaire, are a poor indicator of esophagitis or its severity in patients undergoing workup for bariatric surgery. Therefore, liberal screening upper endoscopy is recommended for pre-bariatric surgery patients to guide appropriate procedure selection., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Illicit drugs are used to produce a sense of euphoria in the user. Like marijuana, kratom is a plant-based substance. The leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree were used to treat mild medical conditions in Thailand and Malaysia as a stimulant in low doses, and sedative and analgesic at high doses. Over recent years, kratom gained popularity as a recreational drug among younger individuals in Southeast Asia due to its availability as a cheap and easily assessable substance with euphoric effects. This trend has rapidly made its way to the West. Unlike marijuana, in the United States kratom's use as an inexpensive herbal recreational "supplement" is poorly popularized. However, emerging reports garnished from use as a recreational drug reveals a potential health hazard. Seizures and neurological consequences have been reported from kratom abuse. Complex pharmacokinetics place patients at further risk of side effects and drug interactions. Still, individuals can legally purchase kratom at stores and through online distributers in capsule form or as teas, powders, and extracts under the veil of a harmless herbal remedy. Without United States Food and Drug Administration oversight, kratom has a high potential for abuse and without regulatory control threatens public safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As medical technology has advanced, the question of medical futility has become a topic of intense debate both within the medical community and within society as a whole. However, a unanimous definition thereof is yet to be decided-some commentators are sceptical as to whether an agreement will ever be reached-and this continues to lead to difficulties, tension, and even legal action when a treating physician disagrees with a patient and/or a patient's family regarding care and treatment options. Although living in a pluralistic society presents one of the major reasons as to why, despite 30 years of intense discussion, no consensus has been made; the issue of medical futility will always be complex as it is, by nature, multifaceted, and numerous elements-including possible risks, evidence of the probability of benefit, the wishes of the patient (and family), professional standards, and cost-interact. Nevertheless, the global medical community has seen the development of two distinctly different approaches to medical futility: one in which the autonomy of patients is of paramount importance in the decision whether or not to pursue a treatment; and one in which beneficence and primum non nocere-first do no harm-are almost entirely the clinician's prerogative, and whereby he/she has a duty to refuse any treatment for which the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits for the patient. Recently, however, there has been a rejection of this dichotomous view of medical futility and the apparent "power struggle" between physician and patient, and a positive movement towards a more collaborative decision-making process that highlights the necessity of communication, aiming to result in the obtainment of the best possible outcome for each patient as an individual., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)