Resuscitation and emergency care in drowning: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The ILCOR Basic Life Support Task Force and the international drowning research community considered it timely to undertake a scoping review of the literature to identify evidence relating to the initial resuscitation, hospital-based interventions and criteria for safe discharge related to drowning. METHODS: Medline, PreMedline, Embase, Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 2000 to June 2020 to identify relevant literature. Titles and abstracts and if necessary full text were reviewed in duplicate. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported on the population (adults and children who are submerged in water), interventions (resuscitation in water/boats, airway management, oxygen administration, AED use, bystander CPR, ventilation strategies, ECMO, protocols for hospital discharge (I), comparator (standard care) and outcomes (O) survival, survival with a favourable neurological outcome, CPR quality, physiological end-points). RESULTS: The database search yielded 3242 references (Medline 1104, Pre-Medline 202, Embase 1722, Cochrane reviews 12, Cochrane CENTRAL 202). After removal of duplicates 2377 papers were left for screening titles and abstracts. In total 65 unique papers were included. The evidence identified was from predominantly high-income countries and lacked consistency in the populations, interventions and outcomes reported. Clinical studies were exclusively observational in nature. CONCLUSION: This scoping review found that there is very limited evidence from observational studies to inform evidence based clinical practice guidelines for drowning. The review highlights an urgent need for high quality research in drowning.

International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: COVID-19 consensus on science, treatment recommendations and task force insights.

Consensus on Science and Treatment recommendations aim to balance the benefits of early resuscitation with the potential for harm to care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chest compressions and cardiopulmonary resuscitation have the potential to generate aerosols. During the current COVID-19 pandemic lay rescuers should consider compressions and public-access defibrillation. Lay rescuers who are willing, trained and able to do so, should consider providing rescue breaths to infants and children in addition to chest compressions. Healthcare professionals should use personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures during resuscitation and may consider defibrillation before donning personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures.

Smart technology improves patient-controlled analgesia: a preliminary report.

UNLABELLED: A new adaptive system has been designed to improve patient-controlled analgesia through the use of a variable bolus dose and a variable background infusion of analgesic. A novel hand set allows patients to rate their own pain on a linear scale of 1 to 10. Data derived from the hand set signals are used by an expert algorithm to repeatedly adapt the drug dosage of the bolus and of the background infusion according to both current pain intensity and the patient's response to previous dosage. To test the system, we performed a small pilot clinical study, using a randomized, double-blinded, cross-over design. The new system was alternated with a conventional system every 12 h. Use of the new system was associated with significantly lower pain scores and fewer bolus requests but more analgesic administration, though without increased adverse effects. It was very well accepted by both patients and clinical staff. IMPLICATIONS: Pain relief after surgery is often best provided by patient-controlled analgesia, which uses an IV infusion pump and a patient-activated switch. We have developed a new computer-controlled or "smart" patient-controlled analgesia that rapidly learns a patient's individual needs and provides continuously tailored pain relief.

Management of severe trauma in intensive care units and surgical wards.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the management of severe trauma in intensive care, high dependency and general surgical wards of Victorian hospitals. DESIGN: Retrospective case review by multidisciplinary committees. SUBJECTS: The first 256 people who died from road traffic accidents who were alive on the arrival of emergency services between 1 July 1992 and 30 June 1994. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Severity of injury according to clinical diagnosis, autopsy findings and recognised trauma-scoring methods; (2) errors in management, identified as contributing or not contributing to the cause of death, and categorised as "management", "system", "diagnostic" or "technique" errors. RESULTS: Most patients (61%) were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), and 19.5% were admitted to high dependency or general surgical wards. Of 2187 errors of care identified, 11.8% occurred in ICU and 6.7% in wards, with the remainder occurring during the earlier phases of care. Most errors were classified as management errors (82% of ICU errors and 88% of ward errors). Fifty-two per cent of ICU errors and 71% of ward errors were judged to contribute to the patient's death. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of errors of trauma management occur in the intensive care and general surgical ward. Improvement in late trauma care may reduce the number of preventable trauma deaths.

Is propofol cost-effective for day-surgery patients?

To attempt to justify the expense of using propofol for day-surgery, we have compared propofol with methohexitone for induction of anaesthesia for elective minor gynaecological procedures. Seventy healthy patients were randomised to receive either induction agent and postoperatively they were compared for recovery times, side-effects and patient appraisal the following day. The results showed that propofol was superior to methohexitone for most parameters, with small but statistically significant differences in response time, ambulation time, vomiting and drowsiness during recovery. There were minor differences in patient appraisal the next day. However, it is doubtful whether the advantages of propofol are sufficiently substantial to justify the expense of its routine use in preference to methohexitone and its place is a matter for individual judgement.