Assessment of the contralateral routing of signal system in unilateral cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) system in unilateral cochlear implants (CI) users. DESIGN: Single-centre prospective interventional study. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PARTICIPANTS: Eight unilateral cochlear implants patients with >30% speech perception in silence and >6 months' implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Free-field speech perception assessed by 'vowel-consonant-vowel' pseudoword test and free-field spatial localisation by Fournier lists on five loudspeakers (in silence and in noise). Subjective benefit assessed on the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. These tests were performed on the 1st and 15th day of the trial (denoted by D1 and D15, respectively). RESULTS: Contralateral routing of signal-cochlear implants provided significant improvement in speech perception at D1 and D15 in silence (P, respectively, 0.03 and 0.025) and in noise (P 0.012 and 0.036). No improvement in spatial localisation was demonstrated. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit quality of life questionnaire administered at D15 showed overall benefit and a significant difference in ease of communication with versus without contralateral routing of signal. By 6 months, however, 75% of the patients (6/8) had abandoned the system due to trouble in noise (5/6), trouble with the device's wiring (3/6) and onset of headache (4/6). CONCLUSION: Contralateral routing of signal-cochlear implants is an interesting novel option, restoring a binaural effect and providing improved speech perception and non-negligible comfort of hearing in certain patients, without the medical and economic costs of bilateral cochlear implants. However, the drawbacks (especially the difficulty of modulating the signal-to-noise ratio) do not presently allow it to be an effective alternative to bilateral cochlear implants.

An investigation of the effects of stage of ensilage on Nassella neesiana seeds, for reducing seed viability and injury to livestock.

The noxious weed Nassella neesiana is established on a wide range of productive land throughout southeastern Australia. N. neesiana seeds, when mature, are sharp, causing injury to livestock, thus posing a problem in fodder bales. To reduce infestations of agricultural weeds in situ, production of silage from weed-infested pastures is practised as part of integrated weed management (IWM). However, there is little data to demonstrate whether this process is useful to reduce infestations or the harmful properties of N. neesiana. Therefore, the minimum duration of ensilage required to reduce the viability of N. neesiana seeds was investigated, both with and without addition of ensilage inoculants in this process. Also, the decreasing propensity of the seeds to injure livestock, after various times and conditions of ensilage, was assessed. Ensilage inoculant reduced seed germination probability to zero after 35 days. When no inoculant was added, zero viability was achieved after 42 days. A qualitative assessment of the hardness of ensilaged seeds found seed husks were softer (and therefore safer) after 42 days, whether inoculant was used or not. Therefore, we suggest that both the viability of N. neesiana seeds and hardness of seed casings are significantly reduced after 42 days, thereby reducing the risks of seed dispersal and injury to livestock.

The delay in transfer between the emergency department and the critical care unit for patients with an acute cardiac event--in hospital factors.

The Lyell McEwin Health Service (LMHS) is a major public hospital located in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, a region where the death rate from ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is higher than the expected death rate in the population. A retrospective case note study conducted at this hospital investigated the duration that patients with unstable angina pectoris (UA) or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) spent in the emergency department (ED) before admission to the critical care unit (CCU) and the factors that contributed to delays of greater than 70 minutes. All patients admitted to the LMHS over an 18 month period with a discharge diagnosis related group (DRG) for AMI and UA were included in the study. A total of 667 case notes were examined; 403 of these cases met the inclusion criteria for the study. The mean duration between arrival in the ED and subsequent admission to the CCU was found to be 161 minutes. DRG was a major factor in the length of time spent in the ED. The mean duration for patients with AMI was 124 minutes, whilst for UA the duration was 190 minutes (difference = 66 minutes, p<0.001). Other factors that were significant were gender (females = mean duration 29 minutes > males, p=0.015), and mode of transport to the ED (arrival by ambulance mean duration 30 minutes < private transport, Recommendations arising from this study included that a system be established to enable the rapid assessment of all patients suspected of suffering AMI and UA, inclusive of their expeditious transfer to the CCU. In addition, a staff development programme was proposed to ensure medical and nursing staff became aware of a bias in this hospital toward transferring male patients in a shorter timeframe than females with the same DRG.

Credentialling Australian critical care nurses: the pilot study.

In October 1998, the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN) launched a model to credential specialist level critical care nurses. This model was 'road tested' during a pilot study, when experienced critical care nurses were invited to apply to become the first Australian credentialled critical care nurses. The pilot study was designed to ensure all individuals taking part in the process were surveyed regarding adequacy of the credentialling package and the credentialling process. Applicants were required to provide evidence of practise at the specialist level, as described in the Competency Standards for Specialist Level Critical Care Nurses. Evidence was presented via curriculum vitae, professional journal and supported by three peer reviewers and two referees. Each application was sent to a three-person assessor panel, which assessed the evidence in the application against the Competency Standards for Specialist Level Critical Care Nurses. A total of six applications from five states and one territory were received by April 1999. Five of the applicants were assessed to have met the Competency Standards and were awarded the credential, Australia Credentialled Critical Care Nurse (ACCN), which they will hold for a period of 3 years. Feedback from assessors, applicants, peer reviewers and referees involved in the pilot study has resulted in the further refinement of the credentialling package and processes. Australian critical care nurses will now have the opportunity to seek to be credentialled four times per year.