Tubulointerstitial Nephritis and Uveitis: A Case Report.

Tubulointerstitial nephritis and uveitis (TINU) is a rare disease of unknown pathogenesis that is characterized by tubulointerstitial nephritis and uveitis. Currently, there are over 250 reported cases of TINU syndrome. TINU syndrome typically presents with mild uveitis and nephritis that is self-limited; however, in this case, the symptoms were severe making it different from previous case reports. We present a case of a 29-year-old female with a history of cytomegalovirus (CMV) with a recent diagnosis of bilateral uveitis who was admitted for worsening systemic symptoms. Laboratory testing revealed acute renal insufficiency along with hematuria and proteinuria. A kidney biopsy revealed tubulointerstitial nephritis, and the patient was initiated on corticosteroids for the diagnosis of TINU. The patient's renal function recovered to baseline after a prolonged three-month course of systemic steroids but had a recurrence of her uveitis with steroid taper requiring initiation of steroid-sparing therapies. TINU syndrome should be considered in patients presenting with uveitis and renal dysfunction. Prompt diagnosis is necessary to preserve renal function with corticosteroids. The prognosis for patients with TINU is variable, with a frequently recurring and relapsing course. More research is needed to determine the optimal treatment.

Lessons from the TAPS study - communication failures between hospitals and general practices.

The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study collected 648 anonymous reports about threats to patient safety from a representative random sample of Australian general practitioners. These contained any events the GPs felt should not have happened and would not want to happen again, regardless of who was at fault or the outcome of the event. This series of articles presents clinical lessons resulting from the TAPS study.

Lessons from the TAPS study-knowledge and skills errors.

The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) Study collected 648 anonymous reports about threats to patient safety from a representative random sample of Australian general practitioners. These contained any events the GPs felt should not have happened and would not want to happen again, regardless of who was at fault or the outcome of the event. This series of articles presents clinical lessons resulting from the TAPS study.

The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study: incidence of reported errors in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of errors anonymously reported by general practitioners in NSW. DESIGN: The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study used anonymous reporting of errors by GPs via a secure web-based questionnaire for 12 months from October 2003. SETTING: General practices in NSW from three groupings: major urban centres (RRMA 1), large regional areas (RRMA 2-3), and rural and remote areas (RRMA 4-7). PARTICIPANTS: 84 GPs from a stratified random sample of the population of 4666 NSW GPs - 41 (49%) from RRMA 1, 22 (26%) from RRMA 2-3, and 21 (25%) from RRMA 4-7. Participants were representative of the GP source population of 4666 doctors in NSW (Medicare items billed, participant age and sex). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of error reports and incidence of reported errors per Medicare patient encounter item and per patient seen per year. RESULTS: 84 GPs submitted 418 error reports, claimed 490 864 Medicare patient encounter items, and saw 166 569 individual patients over 12 months. The incidence of reported error per Medicare patient encounter item per year was 0.078% (95% CI, 0.076%-0.080%). The incidence of reported errors per patient seen per year was 0.240% (95% CI, 0.235%-0.245%). No significant difference was seen in error reporting frequency between RRMA groupings. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study describing the incidence of GP-reported errors in a representative sample. When an anonymous reporting system is provided, about one error is reported for every 1000 Medicare items related to patient encounters billed, and about two errors are reported for every 1000 individual patients seen by a GP.

A comparison of morbidity and services provided in three primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the pattern of morbidity in a general practice casualty with primary care patients in emergency departments (EDs). SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Patients presenting to a general practice casualty and primary care patients in two EDs in Sydney, NSW. RESULTS: The pattern of morbidity in the general practice casualty was similar to that among ambulatory patients in EDs. CONCLUSION: Opportunities may exist to substitute care between casualty services provided by GPs and those provided in EDs.