Comparison of Time to First Dose of Oral Morphine in the Treatment of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare time to first dose of oral morphine used in the treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) versus a special care nursery (SCN) setting. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed of patient data from two community hospitals in a single health network. Infants born at either facility between January 2013 and August 2015 were eligible for inclusion in the study if treated for NAS with a course of oral morphine. The primary outcome was time from birth to first dose of oral morphine. Secondary outcomes included details about the morphine treatment course, length of stay, and complications from NAS. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (19 NICU patients and 35 SCN patients) fulfilled inclusion criteria for the study. The primary outcome of median time from birth to first dose of oral morphine did not differ between the two groups (42.5 hrs [NICU] vs 43 hrs [SCN], p=0.53). No significant differences were found between the morphine regimens used in the two units. The median length of hospital stay (27 days [NICU] vs 26 days [SCN], p=0.66) and median length of NICU/SCN stay (26 days [NICU] vs 23 days [SCN], p=0.75) were not statistically significantly different. Time between transfer to the NICU or SCN and administration of the first dose of oral morphine was significantly shorter in the SCN setting (28 hrs [NICU] vs 4 hrs [SCN], p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that infants treated for NAS had similar treatment in an NICU and an SCN. No difference was observed in time from birth to initiation of medication therapy. In addition, no differences were seen in all but one marker for quality of care including length of stay and cumulative morphine dose. Infants treated for NAS, whether in an NICU or SCN setting, can receive similar treatment and comparable outcomes.

Mixed Methods Survey of Zoonotic Disease Awareness and Practice among Animal and Human Healthcare Providers in Moshi, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Zoonoses are common causes of human and livestock illness in Tanzania. Previous studies have shown that brucellosis, leptospirosis, and Q fever account for a large proportion of human febrile illness in northern Tanzania, yet they are infrequently diagnosed. We conducted this study to assess awareness and knowledge regarding selected zoonoses among healthcare providers in Moshi, Tanzania; to determine what diagnostic and treatment protocols are utilized; and obtain insights into contextual factors contributing to the apparent under-diagnosis of zoonoses. METHODOLOGY/RESULTS: We conducted a questionnaire about zoonoses knowledge, case reporting, and testing with 52 human health practitioners and 10 livestock health providers. Immediately following questionnaire administration, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 of these respondents, using the findings of a previous fever etiology study to prompt conversation. Sixty respondents (97%) had heard of brucellosis, 26 (42%) leptospirosis, and 20 (32%) Q fever. Animal sector respondents reported seeing cases of animal brucellosis (4), rabies (4), and anthrax (3) in the previous 12 months. Human sector respondents reported cases of human brucellosis (15, 29%), rabies (9, 18%) and anthrax (6, 12%). None reported leptospirosis or Q fever cases. Nineteen respondents were aware of a local diagnostic test for human brucellosis. Reports of tests for human leptospirosis or Q fever, or for any of the study pathogens in animals, were rare. Many respondents expressed awareness of malaria over-diagnosis and zoonoses under-diagnosis, and many identified low knowledge and testing capacity as reasons for zoonoses under-diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed differences in knowledge of different zoonoses and low case report frequencies of brucellosis, leptospirosis, and Q fever. There was a lack of known diagnostic services for leptospirosis and Q fever. These findings emphasize a need for improved diagnostic capacity alongside healthcare provider education and improved clinical guidelines for syndrome-based disease management to provoke diagnostic consideration of locally relevant zoonoses in the absence of laboratory confirmation.