A rare case of Aerococcus urinae infective endocarditis in an atypically young male: case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Aerococcus urinae is a gram-positive, alpha-hemolytic coccus bacterium primarily implicated in less than 1 % of all symptomatic urinary tract infections. Risk factors for disease include male gender, advanced age, and comorbid genitourinary tract pathology. Infections beyond the genitourinary tract are rare, though spondylodiscitis, perineal abscesses, lymphadenitis, bacteremia, meningitis, and endocarditis have been reported. Less than fifty cases of A. urinae infective endocarditis (IE) have been described in the literature. The rare occurrence of A. urinae in human infections and resultant lack of randomized controlled trials have resulted in a significant degree of clinical uncertainty in the management of A. urinae IE. CASE PRESENTATION: We present an unusual case of a forty-three year-old male with A. urinae infective endocarditis (IE) who was successfully treated with mitral valve replacement and six weeks of penicillin/gentamicin therapy. In addition, we include a comprehensive review of all reported cases of IE due to A. urinae with specific attention to therapeutic regimens and treatment durations. CONCLUSION: Recent advances in diagnostic technology have led to an increase in the frequency A. urinae is diagnosed. Reviewing cases of Aerococcus urinae infections, their clinical courses and subsequent management can assist future healthcare providers and their patients.

Quality in orthopaedic surgery--an international perspective: AOA critical issues.

Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do the best job possible, we must continuously seek better methods and techniques for achieving better outcomes. The passion for continuous improvement is fundamental, but passion is not sufficient by itself. There is substantial opportunity to improve quality and reduce cost in health care. Multidisciplinary teams that include physicians, nurses, and other ancillary care providers have led to decreased waiting times to see specialists and have also led to better management of chronic disease. By including ancillary care, providers can increase cancer-screening rates and have the potential to decrease readmissions. Moreover, the addition of hospitalists and physician assistants can produce quality and efficiency outcomes that are commensurate with those enjoyed by traditional house staff. However, truly improving performance is difficult due to questions about how we define "quality," design care processes, measure inputs and outputs, develop multi-stakeholder collaborations, and develop incentive programs for delivering "good" care. There is a definite need for more thorough and robust studies of the impact of pay-for-performance programs, with the inclusion of ancillary care providers. Current research has not shown that there is not enough evidence to be able to determine what incentive structure might "work" in a particular health-care system. Payment systems will continue to evolve to incentivize greater collaboration among providers to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future efforts will necessitate the need for strong physician leadership in helping to develop an optimal care team that is as patient-centered as possible. Technology adds dimensions of capability to making improvement real and systematic, as well as providing safer care with fewer errors and better adherence to proven best practices. The drive for quality with technology produces better clinical outcomes and maximizes efficiencies and financial metrics of organizational performance. Technology also adds capabilities for capturing key metrics and reporting them back to clinicians and others. Improved data transparency informs those who can actually do things differently to produce better results and outcomes. While health-care entities strive to focus on quality of care, measuring and reporting such care in a meaningful way are difficult. The best chance of improving overall care for patients is through the adoption of systems that improve coordination and continuity, not by health-care staff working harder. Only through collaboration and integration can health care incorporate a culture for improving quality and patient safety.

Outcomes and long term follow-up after emergent cricothyroidotomy: is routine conversion to tracheostomy necessary?

The purpose of this study is to identify factors associated with survival after cricothyroidotomy (CRIC), and to ascertain long-term outcomes in patients simply decannulated after CRIC versus those revised to tracheostomy. All CRICs between October 1, 1995 and June 20, 2010 were reviewed. Patients were contacted by phone, visited at their last known address, or queried in the Center for Disease Control's National Death Index. DECAN were those CRICs decannulated without revision. TRACH were those revised to a tracheostomy at any point. Ninety-five CRIC patients were identified. In 94 per cent of survivors of initial admission, a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 15 was noted at disposition. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation before or during CRIC performance was strongly associated with all-cause death during index admission, and increasing head Abbreviated Injury Score was associated with lower odds of a neurologically intact survival. Of survivors, 82 per cent of DECAN and 57 per cent of TRACH patients were followed-up with at medians of 48 (interquartile range 19-57) and 53 (20-119) months, respectively. DECAN occurred at a median of 4 days (2-7) whereas TRACH revision occurred at a median of 2 days (1-7). Endoscopy was performed on 36 per cent of DECAN patients and 22 per cent of TRACH patients. Two DECAN patients with acute subglottic edema/stenosis decannulated successfully on days 9 and 15 postinjury and had no problems at 54 and 91 months postinjury. At follow-up, no patient in either group had suffered a clinically evident airway complication. The need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation before or during CRIC portends poorly for neurologically intact survival. Simple decannulation is appropriate for CRIC patients when their need for airway protection has resolved.