PubMed · 7752719
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Alonso, G G Garrido Cantarero. 1995-04-29. [Interobserver agreement].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7752719/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Significant numbers of patients refer themselves to A&E departments for conditions which are neither accidents nor emergencies, relatively few of which require specific hospital treatment. These patients and their conditions have been described as 'inappropriate'. The objective of this paper is to review research relating to the definition, incidence and reasons for attendance of 'inappropriate' attenders. There is no accepted practical definition of what constitutes an 'appropriate' attender to an A&E department nor of what constitutes an 'emergency'. It is therefore not surprising that there is enormous variability (from 6 to 80%) regarding the proportion of visits judged to be inappropriate. All definitions rely completely on implicit and subjective judgements to determine appropriateness. The decision making of patients in opting to attend accident and emergency departments in preference to consulting their GP is complex, involving an interplay of social, psychological and medical factors. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of reported work suggests that the most important factors are the perceived appropriateness of the condition for A&E, A&E accessibility and GP availability. A major deficiency in the available research is that patients have been retrospectively labelled as 'inappropriate' by medical personnel on the basis of the results of patient assessment and treatment. This review suggests that definitions and putative management strategies must consider the social and psychological context of the patients' decisions to attend.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between annual trauma volume per surgeon and years of attending experience with outcome in a Level I trauma center with a large panel of trauma attending surgeons. METHODS: The outcomes of trauma patients were examined in 1995 and 1996 in relationship to surgeon annual trauma volume and years of experience. Outcome variables studied included overall mortality, mortality stratified by Trauma and Injury Severity Score, mortality in patients with an Injury Severity Score greater than 15, and preventable or possibly preventable deaths. Morbidity outcomes examined were overall complication rate and length of stay per attending surgeon. Additionally, five difficult problems were evaluated for critical management decisions by the attending surgeons, and these outcomes were correlated to annual volume and experience. RESULTS: There was no difference in outcome in either morbidity or mortality that correlated with annual volume of patients treated or years of experience. Critical management errors occurred sporadically and were not related to volume or experience. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome after trauma seemed to be related to severity of injury rather than annual volume of cases per surgeon. Although our results may not be applicable to other institutions, they should urge caution in adopting and promulgating volume requirements for individual attending surgeons in trauma centers.
We studied the perinatal mortality and morbidity associated with emergency cervical suture at Royal North Shore Hospital over 7 years. There were 23 patients who had an emergency cervical suture inserted and they were divided into 3 groups for analysis, Group 1: patients with cervical dilatation initially detected on routine 18-20 week ultrasonography and later confirmed on clinical examination, Group 2: cervical dilatation < or = 3 cm and Group 3: cervical dilatation >3 cm at presentation. The median delay in delivery in each group was 6, 5 and 3 weeks respectively. The perioperative membrane rupture rate for emergency suture insertion in this study was 13%. The perinatal mortality rate for each group was 0%, 33% and 43% respectively with an overall rate of 33%. Follow-up at 3-5 years of 9 babies with a birth-weight < or = 1,000 g, revealed that of 6 survivors, 1 had moderate disability and 2 had mild disability. No survivors had severe disability. From the results of our study, emergency cervical suture can prolong gestation and in the absence of prolapsed fetal membranes, the perioperative membrane rupture rate is low. However, it is important to consider that the time gained from emergency cervical suture insertion may convert a previable fetus into an extremely premature infant with the risk of long-term disability.