PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Busby

Publications and source records attributed to C Busby.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Use of anaesthetic rooms in obstetric anaesthesia; a postal survey of obstetric anaesthetists and departments in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Use of anaesthetic rooms has been much discussed in the UK in recent years, but attitudes and practices of obstetric anaesthetists regarding their use for caesarean section have never been sought. METHOD: A postal survey was conducted to discover the extent of use of anaesthetic rooms versus operating theatre for induction of anaesthesia and reasons for using or not using them. Questionnaires regarding individual practices were sent to 400 randomly selected members of the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association ( approximately 25% of UK membership). Questionnaires regarding departmental policies were sent to 100 "clinicians responsible for surveys" (approximately 38% of departments providing obstetric anaesthesia in the UK). RESULTS: For elective caesarean section, 70% of individual clinicians never used an anaesthetic room, 9% rarely, 5% usually, 9% for all regional anaesthetics and 6% always. For emergency caesarean section the corresponding figures were 83%, 5%, 5%, 3% and 2% respectively. Use of the anaesthetic room was independent of the seniority of anaesthetists. In 68% of departments it was standard practice or policy to induce all anaesthetics for caesarean section in the operating room. Conversely, only 1% of departments had a policy to induce all anaesthetics in the anaesthetic room. Patient safety was the usual reason given for anaesthetising in the operating room. CONCLUSION: The majority of obstetric anaesthetists have abandoned the use of anaesthetic induction rooms, the main reason being patient safety. For the same reason, two-thirds of departments providing obstetric anaesthesia consider induction of anaesthesia in the operating room their standard practice.

Anesthesia Department, Hospital↗

Metatarsalgia and rheumatoid arthritis--a randomized, single blind, sequential trial comparing 2 types of foot orthoses and supportive shoes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of semi-rigid and soft orthoses worn in supportive shoes, and supportive shoes worn alone, on metatarsal phalangeal (MTP) joint pain. MTP joint synovitis, and lower extremity function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects referred to occupational therapy received in random order 3 interventions for 12 week trials, separated by 2 week washouts. A crossover design compared effectiveness of interventions. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed the study. A reduction in mean pain scores from baseline to final visits showed that semi-rigid orthoses had a highly significant effect on pain. Soft orthoses did not show a significant effect on pain from baseline to final visit, nor did shoes worn alone. None of the interventions had a significant effect on synovitis or function. CONCLUSION: Semi-rigid orthoses worn in supportive shoes were an effective treatment for metatarsalgia. Supportive shoes worn alone or worn with soft orthoses did not provide pain relief for metatarsalgia.

Adult↗