Exposures to Single-Use Detergent Sacs Reported to a Statewide Poison Control System, 2013-2015.

BACKGROUND: Single-use detergent sacs (SUDSs) represent a relatively new household hazard to children. Brand differences and packaging changes may contribute to differential risks with accidental exposure. We sought to identify high-risk features from SUDS exposures in children and to assess whether product packaging changed trends in SUDS exposures reported to poison centers. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, retrospective chart review of SUDS exposures from January 2013 to August 2015, deidentified case records of a large statewide poison control system were extracted and analyzed for clinical associations and trends. Clinical and demographic data were gathered, and outcomes were analyzed for differences by brand type, presenting complaints, and occurrence in relation to SUDS packaging changes. RESULTS: There were 3502 SUDS exposures, with 3343 (95%) in children 5 years or younger. Metabolic, central nervous system, and pulmonary effects were significantly associated with moderate or severe outcome (P < 0.05). Forty patients received invasive procedures such as endoscopy, bronchoscopy, and/or endotracheal intubation, and more than half had mucosal lesions discovered by the diagnostic procedure. The presence of stridor, wheezing, drooling, lethargy, and exposure to the brand All Mighty Pacs were all significant predictors of moderate or severe outcome (P < 0.05). After the implementation of packaging changes, there was a transient decline in the number of exposures to the Tide Pods product. CONCLUSION: Central nervous system and respiratory effects as well as certain brand types predict serious outcomes from SUDS exposures. Manufacturing changes had a brief beneficial effect on the volume of SUDS exposures reported between 2013 and 2015.

Human bromethalin exposures reported to a U.S. Statewide Poison Control System.

BACKGROUND: Bromethalin is an increasingly used alternative to long-acting anticoagulant and cholecalciferol rodenticides. There are few reports of human exposures, and no existing professional society guidelines on medical management of bromethalin ingestions. The aim of this retrospective data review is to characterize bromethalin exposures reported to the California Poison Control System (CPCS) between 1997 and 2014. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective case review of our statewide poison control system's electronic medical records. Following Institutional Board Review and Research Committee approvals, poison center exposures related to bromethalin were extracted using substance code and free text search strategies. Case notes of bromethalin exposures were reviewed for demographic, clinical, laboratory, and outcome information; inclusion criteria for the study was single-substance, human exposure to bromethalin. RESULTS: There were 129 calls related to human bromethalin exposures (three cases met exclusion criteria). The age range of cases was 7 months-90 years old, with the majority of exposures (89 cases; 70.6%), occurring in children younger than 5 years of age (median age of 2 years). Most exposures occurred in the pediatric population as a result of exploratory oral exposure. One hundred and thirteen patients (89.7%) had no effects post exposure, while 10 patients (7.9%) had a minor outcome. Adverse effects were minor, self-limited, and mostly gastrointestinal upset. There were no moderate, major, or fatal effects in our study population. The approximate ingested dose, available in six cases, ranged from 0.067 mg/kg to 0.3 mg/kg (milligrams of bromethalin ingested per kilogram of body weight), and no dose-symptom threshold could be established from this series. Exposures were not confirmed through urine or serum laboratory testing. DISCUSSION: The prognosis for most accidental ingestions appears to be excellent. However, bromethalin exposures may result in a higher number of symptomatic patients than long-acting anticoagulant agents. Parents, physicians and poison control specialists are encouraged to maintain a high index of suspicion for bromethalin-related complications in all cases of rodenticide exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Accidental bromethalin exposures in children appear to be self-limited in toxicity. Additional studies are warranted to determine whether more severe effects are precipitated when larger amounts are involved, particularly in suicidal ingestion.

Use of sealed grafts in the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device inflow and outflow conduits.

Gelatin-impregnated nonporous sealed grafts were introduced in the inflow and outflow conduits for use with the HeartMate II (HMII) to eliminate preclotting procedures and to reduce operative bleeding. We compared results of 67 patients who received first-time left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with sealed inflow and outflow grafts (S-graft group) with a preceding 65 patients who received an LVAD with nonsealed grafts (NS-graft group). Overall, the amount of blood product transfusions was less in the S-graft group than that in the NS-graft group (red blood cells, 4.9 ± 4.5 vs. 8.0 ± 9.4 units, p = 0.022; fresh-frozen plasma, 5.0 ± 3.0 vs. 8.7 ± 9.3 units, p = 0.004; platelets, 2.9 ± 1.1 vs. 4.5 ± 3.5 units, p = 0.001; and cryoprecipitate, 1.2 ± 0.9 vs. 2.01 ± 1.9 units, p = 0.002). Within a follow-up period of 6 months, no device-related infections or strokes occurred in the S-group, but the NS-group had one (1.5%) driveline infections and four (6%) strokes. The 30 days survival rate was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.053), but favored the S-group (97%) over the NS-group (88%). Use of a HMII with a sealed graft on the inflow and outflow conduits is associated with less postoperative bleeding and may have helped to decrease the frequency of postoperative adverse events.

Problem-based training improves recognition of patient hazards by advanced medical students during chart review: a randomized controlled crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Patient chart review is the gold standard for detection of potential patient hazards (i.e. medication errors or failure to follow up actionable results) in both routine clinical care and patient safety research. However, advanced medical students' ability to read patient charts and to identify patient hazards is rather poor. We therefore investigated whether it is possible to teach advanced medical students how to identify patient hazards independent of context (i.e. cancer versus cardiac failure) in patient charts. METHODS: All fifth-year medical students in one semester (n = 123) were randomized into two groups. One group (IC) received a patient chart review-training first and then a control-intervention and the other group (CI) received the control-intervention first and then the patient chart review-training. Before and after the teaching sessions, students reviewed different scenarios with standardized fictional patient charts containing 12 common patient hazards. Two blinded raters rated the students' notes for any patient hazard addressed in the notes using a checklist. The students were blinded to the study question and design. There was no external funding and no harm for the participating students. RESULTS: A total of 35 data sets had to be excluded because of missing data. Overall, the students identified 17% (IQR 8-29%) of the patient hazards before the training and 56% (IQR 41-66%) of the patient hazards after the training. At the second assessment students identified more patient hazards than at the first. They identified even more in the third. The effect was most pronounced after the patient chart review training (all p<.01). CONCLUSION: Patient chart review exercises and problem-based patient chart review training improve students' abilities to recognize patient hazards independent of context during patient chart review.

Prepackaged central line kits reduce procedural mistakes during central line insertion: a randomized controlled prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Central line catheter insertion is a complex procedure with a high cognitive load for novices. Providing a prepackaged all-inclusive kit is a simple measure that may reduce the cognitive load. We assessed whether the use of prepackaged all-inclusive central line insertion kits reduces procedural mistakes during central line catheter insertion by novices. METHODS: Thirty final year medical students and recently qualified physicians were randomized into two equal groups. One group used a prepackaged all-inclusive kit and the other used a standard kit containing only the central vein catheter and all other separately packaged components provided in a materials cart. The procedure was videotaped and analyzed by two blinded raters using a checklist. Both groups performed central line catheter insertion on a manikin, assisted by nursing students. RESULTS: The prepackaged kit group outperformed the standard kit group in four of the five quality indicators: procedure duration (26:26 ± 3:50 min vs. 31:27 ± 5:57 min, p = .01); major technical mistakes (3.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6, p = .03); minor technical mistakes (5.2 ± 1.7 vs. 8.0 ± 3.2, p = .01); and correct steps (83 ± 5% vs. 75 ± 11%, p = .02). The difference for breaches of aseptic technique (1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.0 ± 3.6, p = .06) was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Prepackaged all-inclusive kits for novices improved the procedure quality and saved staff time resources in a controlled simulation environment. Future studies are needed to address whether central line kits also improve patient safety in hospital settings.

Student tutors for hands-on training in focused emergency echocardiography--a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Focused emergency echocardiography performed by non-cardiologists has been shown to be feasible and effective in emergency situations. During resuscitation a short focused emergency echocardiography has been shown to narrow down potential differential diagnoses and to improve patient survival. Quite a large proportion of physicians are eligible to learn focused emergency echocardiography. Training in focused emergency echocardiography usually comprises a lecture, hands-on trainings in very small groups, and a practice phase. There is a shortage of experienced echocardiographers who can supervise the second step, the hands-on training. We thus investigated whether student tutors can perform the hands-on training for focused emergency echocardiography. METHODS: A total of 30 volunteer 4th and 5th year students were randomly assigned to a twelve-hour basic echocardiography course comprising a lecture followed by a hands-on training in small groups taught either by an expert cardiographer (EC) or by a student tutor (ST). Using a pre-post-design, the students were evaluated by an OSCE. The students had to generate two still frames with the apical five-chamber view and the parasternal long axis in five minutes and to correctly mark twelve anatomical cardiac structures. Two blinded expert cardiographers rated the students' performance using a standardized checklist. Students could achieve a maximum of 25 points. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement after the training (p < .0001). In the group taught by EC the average increased from 2.3±3.4 to 17.1±3.0 points, and in the group taught by ST from 2.7±3.0 to 13.9±2.7 points. The difference in improvement between the groups was also significant (p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Hands-on training by student tutors led to a significant gain in echocardiography skills, although inferior to teaching by an expert cardiographer.

Effect of supervised students' involvement on diagnostic accuracy in hospitalized medical patients--a prospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: During internships most medical students engage in history taking and physical examination during evaluation of hospitalized patients. However, the students' ability for pattern recognition is not as developed as in medical experts and complete history taking is often not repeated by an expert, so important clues may be missed. On the other hand, students' history taking is usually more extensive than experts' history taking and medical students discuss their findings with a Supervisor. Thus the effect of student involvement on diagnostic accuracy is unclear. We therefore compared the diagnostic accuracy for patients in the medical emergency department with and without student involvement in the evaluation process. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients in the medical emergency department were assigned to evaluation by either a supervised medical student or an emergency department physician. We only included patients who were admitted to our hospital and subsequently cared for by another medical team on the ward. We compared the working diagnosis from the emergency department with the discharge diagnosis. A total of 310 patients included in the study were cared for by 41 medical students and 21 emergency department physicians. The working diagnosis was changed in 22% of the patients evaluated by physicians evaluation and in 10% of the patients evaluated by supervised medical students (p = .006). There was no difference in the expenditures for diagnostic procedures, length of stay in the emergency department or patient comorbidity complexity level. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Involvement of closely supervised medical students in the evaluation process of hospitalized medical patients leads to an improved diagnostic accuracy compared to evaluation by an emergency department physician alone.