The prevalence and virulence characteristics of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli at an urgent-care clinic in the USA: a case-control study.

This case-control study examined the prevalence of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC), its genes and elicited inflammatory response, and the stool characteristics of adult patients with and without acute diarrhoeal illness presenting to an urgent-care clinic in the USA. A total of 1004 individual stool specimens (253 from patients with acute diarrhoeal illness and 751 from patients without diarrhoeal illness) were collected between 1 June 2003 and 30 June 2008. EAEC was identified as the sole cause of acute diarrhoeal illness in 6 % (n=15) of patients and in 2 % (n=15) without diarrhoeal illness. Control patients (n=15) were similar to case patients (n=15) for age, gender and co-morbidities. The EAEC genes aggR, aap, aat, astA and/or set1A were identified more frequently in case patients compared with control patients (P <0.05). aggR-positive EAEC elicited higher levels of interleukin (IL)-1ra, IL-6, IL-8 and tumour necrosis factor-alpha compared with aggR-negative EAEC during co-incubation with HCT-8 cells. Patients with EAEC diarrhoea and isolates with the genes aggR, aap, aatA, astA or set1A had stools characterized by gross mucus and the presence of faecal leukocytes (P <0.05). These results indicate that EAEC is a potential cause of acute diarrhoeal illness affecting patients presenting to an acute-care clinic in the USA and suggest that aggR, aap, aatA, astA and set1A may be markers for virulence.

A randomized clinical trial to compare the use of safety net enclosures with standard restraints in agitated hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Although hospitals attempt to minimize the use of restraints, certain cases require their application. For such patients, there is a need for novel, safe and more humane restraint systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability and efficacy of safe enclosures in agitated hospitalized patients. DESIGN: Single-centered randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community hospital. PATIENTS: Agitated hospitalized patients requiring restraint. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to either standard restraints or the safe enclosure. We used the SOMA Safe Enclosure. MEASUREMENTS: Perception scores of relatives, physicians, and nurses; agitation scores of patients (assessed using the Agitated Behavior Scale (ABS) and the Alcohol Withdrawal Assessment Form (AWAF)); length of stay; time in restraints; total dose of medication used to treat agitation; and injuries. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients randomized, 20 were assigned to the safe enclosure group and 29 were assigned to the standard restraint group. Relatives, physicians and secondary nurses rated the safe enclosure more positively than standard restraints (P < .001, P < .001, P = .023, respectively). There was no difference between groups in level of agitation (AWA at 48 hours, P = .8516; ABS at 48 hours, P = .3743); length of stay (P = .3077); time in restraints (P = .5745);or total dose of medication (anti-anxiety medications, P = .5607; anti-psychotic medications, P = .7858). There was one injury to a patient in the standard restraint group and none in the safe enclosure group. CONCLUSIONS: For hospitalized patients requiring restraint, the SOMA Safe Enclosure is effective and more acceptable to relatives, physicians, and secondary nurses than currently used restraints.