PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marcus L Martin

Publications and source records attributed to Marcus L Martin.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Hospital-based healthcare provider (nurse and physician) integration into an emergency medical services-managed mass-gathering event.

INTRODUCTION: This report describes not only the implementation of a coordinated emergency medical services-hospital-based healthcare team but also investigates the integration of nurse-physician teams at a mass gathering medical care event. METHODS: A review of resource utilization, patient encounters, and local ED census was performed during this period at a college football stadium. RESULTS: During this 4-year period, 1681 patients presented for medical care during 26 events with a total attendance of 1,544,244 (1.09 patients per thousand attendees [PT]). The majority of patient contacts were for minor complaints (1451, 87.6%), whereas 205 (12.4%) received full evaluations (focused history and physical examination most often with pulse oximetric and electrocardiographic monitoring). A total of 109 patients were transported (4.19 PT), representing 6.48% of all patients. Patient census for the event medical deployment increased from 0.44 PT in 2001 to 1.75 PT in 2004. The number and percent of patients transported also increased between 2001 (0.02 PT, 4.48%) and 2004 (0.12 PT, 6.67%). However, 118 (57.6%) patients who received full evaluations were able to be discharged by a physician, avoiding transport. Chief complaints and management of patients receiving full evaluations were consistent across this period, with altered mental status (52.7%) and chest pain (12.7%) as the most common complaints. Average ED census during this period was found to be significantly higher on event days (176.2) than nonevent days (161.2) (t = 8.04, P < .001), although this produced only a minor impact on the emergent care system. CONCLUSION: This study describes one potential deployment plan for a mass gathering medical event and suggests that the incorporation of physicians into a mass gathering setting may be associated with an absolute increase in patient census and transports, while decreasing the percent of patients transported. The impact on local emergency medical services and ED resources, although not specifically investigated in this study, was likely minimal.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Vaccine information statements. Revolutionary but neglected educational advances in healthcare in the United States.

The purpose of this report is to provide further information about vaccine information statements (VISs) that are revolutionary but neglected educational advances in the United States. Because the use of VISs is mandated by the Federal Government in every individual being immunized, it is the goal of this report to further awaken health professionals and society to the mandatory use of these superb educational statements. With the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the Federal Government required that VISs would be given to all vaccine recipients. As of September 2001, the VISs that must be used are diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, (DTaP); diphtheria, tetanus (Td); measles, mumps, rubella (MMR); polio (IPV); hepatitis B; Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); varicella; and pneumococcal conjugate. Copies of the VISs are available at www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 mandated that all health care providers report certain adverse events that occur following vaccination. As a result, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) was established by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1990. In order to reduce the liability of manufacturers and healthcare providers, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). This program is intended to compensate those individuals who have been injured by vaccines on a no-fault basis. While the use of VISs has been mandated since 1996, a national survey of private practice office settings has revealed that many immunized patients do not receive the VISs. When these forms were used, physicians rarely initiated discussions regarding contraindications to immunizations or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Fortunately, the state boards of medical examiners, like the one in Oregon, are taking a strong stand for the use of VISs, with the warning that failure to use a VIS may result in disciplinary action. Our nation and practicing physicians must be awakened to the importance of the use of VISs to ensure that every vaccinated individual receives this statement at the time of vaccination.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed2005

Scientific basis for the selection of emergency medical examination gloves for emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel. An update.

The use of powder-free natural rubber or latex-free emergency medical examination gloves is especially important to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel to avoid eliciting an allergic reaction in the latex sensitized patient. The majority of our emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and firefighters are now wearing powder-free emergency medical examination gloves that comply with the stringent codes and standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while very few hospital emergency department personnel have been provided with NFPA-approved gloves. There are four well-defined goals of this report that will assist emergency medical services, fire departments, and hospitals in the selection and purchase of emergency medical examination gloves. First, we will review again the stringent regulations for emergency medical examination gloves that are outlined by the NFPA. This design and performance standard was devised by the NFPA to address protective clothing for emergency medical operations. The design and performance requirement of the emergency medical examination gloves were described in the NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 Edition. As of September 2003, the emergency medical examination glove must meet the new design and performance requirements of emergency medical examination gloves discussed in NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 2003 Edition.

Certification↗
PubMed2004

Society for Academic Emergency Medicine survey of the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Academic Societies.

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) surveyed the Council of Academic Societies (CAS) organizations to obtain useful information to project SAEM goals into the year 2010. The objective of this work was to understand common and varying organizational operations and identify opportunities. The authors reviewed CAS organizations' mission statements, operating budgets, modes of communications, products, meeting formats, foundations, endowment funds, staff structures, headquarters, advocacy activities (services), top challenges, and most significant changes anticipated the next ten years. The survey methodology was used to gain insight into modes of operation of CAS organizations and enable SAEM to review its own operations and identify potential organizational changes based on the experiences of others. Individual CAS organizations might similarly benefit by reviewing the results of the survey and comparing themselves with others.

Education, Medical↗
PubMed2004

Scientific basis for selection of emergency medical examination gloves for emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel.

Dusting powders were first applied to gloves to facilitate donning. After 1980, manufacturers devised innovative techniques to manufacture gloves without dusting powders. It has been well documented that the powders on gloves present a health hazard to patients, as well as healthcare workers. First, these powders elicit tissue toxicity in every tissue in the body. Second, these powders serve as carriers of latex allergen and may precipitate a life-threatening allergic reaction in sensitized patients. These well-documented hazards of glove powders have caused a growing number of emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firelighters, and hospitals to abandon the use of powdered emergency medical examination gloves, using only powder-free gloves. Powder-free latex as well as non-latex gloves are now available to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel. The use of powder-free natural rubber latex-free gloves is especially important to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, as well as emergency department personnel to avoid eliciting an allergic reaction in the latex sensitized patient. The majority of our emergency medical technicians, paramedics and firefighters are now wearing powder-free emergency medical examination gloves that comply with the stringent Codes and Standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while very few hospital emergency department personnel have been provided with NFPA approved gloves. It is the purpose of this report to review the stringent regulations for emergency medical examination gloves that are outlined by the NFPA. This design and performance Standard was devised by the NFPA to address protective clothing for emergency medical operations. The design and performance requirement of the emergency medical examination gloves were described in the NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 Edition. In September 2003, the emergency medical examination glove must meet the new design and performance requirements of emergency medical examination gloves discussed

Certification↗
PubMed2003

Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating transmission in the United States.

There is a global epidemic of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections affecting more than 350 million people worldwide. This collective review provides the rationale for a comprehensive strategy to eliminate transmission of HBV in the United States. The virologic characteristics of HBV include three forms of HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), HBV core antigen (HbcAg), as well as a circulating peptide, the HBV e antigen (HBeAg). The year 2002 was the 20th anniversary of the use in the United States of the world's first vaccine against HBV. Our prevention strategy involves making HBV vaccine a part of the routine vaccination schedules for all infants in the United States. Hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) is another useful adjunct for prophylaxis that provides temporary protection (i.e., 3-6 months) and is recommended in only certain postexposure settings. The routes for administration of HBV vaccine and HBIG are intramuscular sites that differ according to the age of the individual. Following routine HBV vaccination in adults and children, prevaccination and postvaccination serologic testing is not recommended because of the relatively low rate of HBV infection and the low cost of the vaccine. Postexposure prophylaxis for HBV with serologic testing is, however, necessary for all hospital personnel exposed to blood or body fluids. In addition, infants born from mothers not immunized to HBV or those who are infected with HBV also require comprehensive postexposure prophylaxis with serologic testing. Comprehensive immunization strategies with serologic testing must be implemented for all groups that have a high risk of HBV infection. Finally, vaccine information statements (VIS) must be carefully integrated in this comprehensive disease prevention strategy, which is designed to prevent the transmission of HBV in the United States.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Management and prevention of tetanus.

The World Health Organization was committed to eliminating neonatal tetanus by 1995. Three years after this date, the infection killed over 400,000 babies a year, even though a safe, effective vaccine had been available for most of this century. The frequency of tetanus in the developing world epitomizes the healthcare disparity between the developed and the developing world. Consequently, the priority of the medical profession must be prevention, with the development of simpler immunization schedules with longer protection. Consequently, the purpose of this collective review is to provide an overview to the management of tetanus as well as to review the immunization strategy that will prevent this potentially deadly illness. Tetanus is caused by Cloistridium tetani, which is an obligate anaerobic, gram-positive rod that is motile and readily forms endospores. Although C. tetani is located everywhere, the disease is encountered largely in underdeveloped, overcrowded, and economically disadvantaged countries. C. tetani is widespread in the feces of domestic animals and humans, while spores of C. tetani are abundant in soil and in the environment surrounding the habitation of humans and animals. Tetanus usually follows deep penetrating wounds where anaerobic bacterial growth is facilitated. Three basic forms of tetanus may be distinguished: local, cephalic, and generalized. At least 80% of the cases are the generalized form. In the adult patient, the most characteristic sign of generalized tetanus is lockjaw, or trismus. The diagnosis of tetanus is most frequently made on clinical manifestations, rather than on bacteriologic findings. The three objectives of management of tetanus are: (1) to provide supportive care until the tetanospasmin that is fixed in tissue has been metabolized; (2) to neutralize circulating toxin; and (3) to remove the source of tetanospasmin. Because there is essentially no immunity to tetanus toxoid, the only effective way to control tetanus is by prophylactic immunization.

Adult↗