The Use of Non-physician Prescribed Medications in Patients Presenting to Two Emergency Departments in a Low/Middle-income Country.

INTRODUCTION: With few trained healthcare practitioners and limited personal finances, many patients in low/middle income countries purchase prescription medications from non-physician prescribers (NPP). This study documents various aspects of this practice, including patterns of prescribing, and the patient's understanding of medication risks. METHODS: From January to April 2017, 479 patients entering two hospitals in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, were surveyed. Demographics, medications, types of NPP who provided the medication, patients history and physicians' chart data were documented. Information, including symptoms when the medication was purchased, possible side effects, hospital presenting symptoms, etc, was recorded. The patient's understanding of medication allergies and risk of serious side effects was also documented. RESULTS: Of the 467 patients included, more than half (59%), reported buying medications from NPPs within the two weeks before presenting to the hospital. Nearly half of those patients, (42%), could not identify any of their medications. Of those 159 patients who could identify at least one drug, 79% bought at least one medication that would require a prescription in the United States. Only 8% of patients were aware that medications could cause serious harm. Twenty-three percent of the known medications were oral or injectable corticosteroids, and 56% of steroid users, typically chronic users, had evidence of possible side effects. CONCLUSION: Many patients in one low/middle income country received prescription medications from various NPPs with little information concerning these medications. Efforts to educate the public about their medications and the potential risks of medications are needed.

Comparison of sitting face-to-face intubation (two-person technique) with standard oral-tracheal intubation in novices: a mannequin study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of the upright position on the success of oral-tracheal intubation. Yet, for patients with airway difficulties (i.e, active intraoral bleeding or morbidly obese), the upright position may both benefit the patient and facilitate intubation. OBJECTIVES: We compared the success rates of subjects performing standard intubation to a modified version of the sitting face-to-face oral-tracheal intubation technique on a simulation model. We also reviewed the possible advantages and limitations of the sitting face-to-face intubation technique. METHODS: Volunteer medical and paramedical students were given instruction, then tested, performing in random order both standard oral-tracheal and two-person sitting face-to-face oral-tracheal intubation on full-bodied mannequins. Observers reviewed video recordings, noting the number of successful intubations and the time to completion of each procedure at 15, 20, and 30 s. RESULTS: All of the sitting face-to-face intubations were successful, 53/53 (100%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 93-100%); whereas of the 53 subjects who performed standard intubation, 48 were successful (91%, 95% CI 80-96%). The difference between successful intubations using the standard vs. sitting face-to-face technique was 9% (95% CI 1.3-9.4%, p=0.025). At times 15 and 20 s, medical student subjects who successfully performed both techniques were less successful at completing the procedure when performing the standard technique as compared to the sitting face-to-face technique (p=0.016). A post-procedural survey found that the majority of subjects preferred the sitting technique. CONCLUSION: Subjects were significantly more successful at performing and preferred the sitting face-to-face intubation when compared to standard intubation.