Sterilization issues in vCJD--towards a consensus: meeting between the Central Sterilizing Club and Hospital Infection Society. 12th September 2000.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to ascertain the variability in the use of antibiotics for the treatment of acute respiratoryinfections in several hospital emergency services in Spain, as well as the appropriateness of antibiotics prescription through evaluation by a panel of experts using available scientific evidence. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out in the emergency services of 10 hospitals in different Spanish regions. We chose patients diagnosed as having acute respiratory infection, aged over 14 years. Among the collected variables were: type of respiratory infection, antibiotic prescription, comorbidity, qualification of the prescribing doctor and hospital admission. The consensus conference held by a panel of experts established first choice treatment and the alternative and inappropriate use for each respiratory infection, based on the available scientific evidence. All the observed prescriptions in our study were classified according to this pattern. RESULTS: A sample of 2899 acute respiratory infections was studied (5.5% of all emergencies). Antibacterial agent treatment was prescribed in 82.6% of these, varying according to the infection between 98.5% of pneumonias and 49% of croup-influenza-common cold. The most commonly used antibiotics were amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefuroxime. The global percentage of inappropriate prescription was 40.5% (95% CI; 35.4-45.5). The prescriptions were inappropriate in 16.9% of cases of pharyngotonsillitis, 17.8% of chronic bronchitis, 26.9% of acute bronchitis, 29.3% of pneumonias, 30.8% of otitis and sinusitis and in 70.8% of croup, flu, common cold and non-specified infections. Significant variability among participating centres was observed, both in choice of antibiotics and in their degree of appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: There is excessive use of antimicrobial drugs in acute respiratory infections, and the majority are used for viral infections. There is indiscriminate use of broad spectrum antibiotics, which are valid in some infections but clearly inappropriate in others. Similarly, there are important differences in the choice of antibiotics and their degree of appropriateness among hospitals.
A consensus was obtained following a two-day international conference to review the management of mandibular condyle fractures. Whilst areas of disagreement still exist, there are many areas of agreement. It is hoped this editorial will stimulate debate leading to internationally accepted guidelines.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
INTRODUCTION: The original Eurocleft project, a European intercentre comparison study, revealed dramatic differences in outcome, which were a powerful stimulus for improvement in the services of respective teams. The study developed a preliminary methodology to compare practices and the potential for wider European collaboration including opportunities for the promotion of clinical trials and intercentre comparison was recognized by the European Commission. Therefore, the project: 'Standards of Care for Cleft Lip and Palate in Europe: Eurocleft' ran between 1996 and 2000 and aimed to promote a broad uplift in the quality of care and research in the area of cleft lip and palate. RESULTS: The results of the 1996-2000 project include: a register of services in Europe, with details of professionals and teams involved in cleft care, service organization, clinical protocols and special facilities for research; a set of common Policy Statements governing clinical practice for European cleft teams, Practice Guidelines describing minimum recommendations for care that all European children with clefts should be entitled to and recommendations for Documentation governing minimum records that cleft teams should maintain; encouraging initial efforts to compare outcomes (results) of care between centres. A survey showed a wide diversity in models of care and national policies as well as clinical practices in Europe. Of the 201 centres that registered with the network, the survey showed 194 different protocols being followed for only unilateral clefts. CONCLUSION: Cleft services, treatment and research have undoubtedly suffered from haphazard development across Europe. Attainment of even minimum standards of care remains a major challenge in some communities and both the will to reform and a basic strategy to follow are overdue. It is hoped that the Eurocleft Consensus Recommendations reached during the present project will assist in improving the opportunities for tomorrow's patients. It is also hoped that the collaborative research now beginning under the European Commission's Framework V Programme will provide a focus for European researchers wishing to improve understanding, treatment and prevention of clefts of the lip, alveolus and palate in the years ahead.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Therapy with either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists is of benefit to patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). However, algorithms that define how LMWH may be used in patients, proceeding from medical management to intervention and in conjunction with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, are lacking. The objectives of this task force were to formulate recommendations based on all available data for the use of LMWH, both with and without GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, and to provide seamless integration of care during the transition from medical to interventional management. METHODS AND RESULTS: An international task force of 14 cardiologists with extensive experience in clinical trials was convened in New York in February 2001 to address issues related to the use of LMWH in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. Evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and other reports was discussed, and consensus recommendations were formulated. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial evidence exists that patients receiving LMWH for an ACS can safely undergo cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. Concerns regarding the transition of these patients from the medical service to the cardiac catheterization laboratory should therefore not impede the upstream use of LMWH. Furthermore, LMWH and GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists can be used safely in combination, with no apparent increase in the risk of major bleeding. Consensus algorithms for therapy are presented.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.