Gastroprotection in trauma patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

BACKGROUND: NSAIDs are commonly used analgesic agents in the orthopaedic trauma setting. Evidence-based guidelines recommend that patients with one or more risk factors for NSAID-associated gastrointestinal (GI) ulcer complications should be prescribed gastroprotective agents to minimise the risk of serious ulcer complications, including gastrointestinal haemorrhage. The purpose of the present audit was to evaluate and improve the adherence to these guidelines in new-NSAID users in a trauma unit at a district general hospital. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted over an 18-week period to assess pre-intervention practice. Subsequently, an awareness programme, including prescriber and pharmacist education and the use of reminder posters, was implemented. Following this, data were collected prospectively over 9 weeks to assess any change in performance. Assessment involved review of case-notes and prescription charts of all adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who were commenced on regular NSAIDs on or during admission to the Trauma Unit. Patients were risk-stratified according to the number of risk factors, which were defined as age ≥ 65 years, major comorbidity, oral steroids, anticoagulation, history of upper gastrointestinal ulceration or bleeding and prescription above the normal recommended dose of NSAIDs. The American College of Rheumatology guidelines recommend the use of gastroprotective agents when one or more risk factors was present. Prescription of gastroprotective drugs was recorded to measure adherence to evidence-based guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 644 patients were reviewed over the study period, 451 pre-intervention and 193 post-intervention. 100 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria pre-intervention and 49 post-intervention. Before intervention, the proportion of high-risk NSAID-receivers co-prescribed gastroprotection was low at 25.3%, although the likelihood of adherence improved with the number of risk factors; overall adherence rate improved significantly following intervention at 73.1% (chi² = 18.8, p < 0.001). Furthermore, a smaller proportion of NSAID-receivers fell into the high-risk category from 75% to 56.5% (chi² = 7.25, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: (1) The majority of trauma admissions are at high risk for developing gastrointestinal haemorrhage. (2) Initial adherence to national guidelines for safe prescription of NSAIDs in our trauma unit was poor (25.3%) but improved significantly (73.1%) following an awareness programme which included education of prescribers and pharmacists. (3) A lower proportion of NSAID-receivers had multiple risk factors following our awareness programme. (4) Awareness of gastroprotection guidelines must be raised in trauma units to prevent undertreatment and hence minimise the risk of GI haemorrhage.

Surgical repair following trauma to vascular graft causing spinal cord infarction.

A 55-year-old woman with a background of vascular disease presented with signs of bilateral limb ischaemia. Following elective axillobifemoral bypass and hospital discharge, accidental axillary trauma causing a chest wall haematoma, the patient underwent an emergency graft repair. Postextubation, she reported with absent sensation in her legs. Spinal cord infarction was diagnosed through clinical assessment and exclusion of other causes. The aetiology of compromise to the spinal cord blood supply is unclear. Possibilities include intraoperative hypotension, inadvertent compromise to blood supply of thoracic radicular arteries, dislodged atherosclerotic emboli or a combination of these factors. Spinal cord infarction recognised early can be treated. Sedation to assist ventilation had obscured the problem early enough to consider treatment. Patients with vascular risk factors should be carefully managed intraoperatively to minimise hypotensive episodes and care should also be taken not to compromise blood flow of radicular arteries.

Evaluation of an online medical teaching forum.

BACKGROUND: Social media is increasingly being used for teaching and assessment. We describe the design and implementation of a Facebook© teaching forum for medical students, and evaluate its effectiveness. METHODS: A Facebook© teaching forum was set up in a London Hospital to assist with learning and assessment for undergraduate medical students. An independent online survey was used to collate their experiences. Accessibility to the forum, usefulness in stimulating peer-to-peer discussion and the use of weekly formative assessments were evaluated using a Likert scale. RESULTS: In total, 91 per cent (n=68/75) of students who had Facebook© joined the teaching forum. The majority of students completed the questionnaire (n=39/68, 57%). All students visited the teaching forum group at least once a week. A significant proportion attempted all 10 question sets (n=16/39, 41%). Students felt more comfortable asking questions in the forum than in ward rounds and clinics (n=22/39, 56%). The general consensus was that Facebook© could be used for educational purposes, with just 5 per cent of students (n=2/39) thinking that Facebook© should only be used socially and with 92 per cent believing that the forum helped to achieve the learning objectives of the curriculum (n=36/39). DISCUSSION: Facebook© provides a safe environment for learning and discussion amongst medical undergraduates undergoing their clinical attachments. Furthermore, through formative assessments set by a medical educator, it provides a useful revision tool for summative assessments and reinforces knowledge learned through conventional teaching methods.

Preoperative blood tests in elective general surgery: cost and clinical implications.

A retrospective observational study was performed in our trust in October 2010 that examined compliance, and the financial and clinical implications of performing inappropriate preoperative blood tests on adult patients prior to elective surgery, against the 2003 NICE guidelines. An unacceptable proportion of inappropriate tests (31.3%) were being performed. None were associated with adverse outcome or changes in management. Based on our results, we estimate that an extrapolated cost of pound 11.2 million is being spent on inappropriate blood tests in NHS England and Wales.