Point of care coagulometry in prehospital emergency care: an observational study

Background: Haemostatic impairment can have a crucial impact on the outcome of emergency patients, especially in cases of concomitant antithrombotic drug treatment. In this prospective observational study we used a point of care (POC) coagulometer in a prehospital physician-based emergency medical system in order to test its validity and potential value in the treatment of emergency patients. Methods: During a study period of 12 months, patients could be included if venous access was mandatory for further treatment. The POC device CoaguChek® was used to assess international normalized ratio (INR) after ambulance arrival at the scene. Results were compared with in-hospital central laboratory assessment of INR. The gain of time was analysed as well as the potential value of POC testing through a questionnaire completed by the responsible prehospital emergency physician. Results: A total of 103 patients were included in this study. POC INR results were highly correlated with results of conventional assessment of INR (Bland-Altman-bias: 0.014). Using a cutoff value of INR >1.3, the device’s sensitivity to detect coagulopathy was 100 % with a specificity of 98.7 %. The median gain of time was 69 min. Treating emergency physicians considered the value of prehospital POC INR testing ‘high’ in 9 % and ‘medium’ in 21 % of all patients. In patients with tracer diagnosis ‘neurology’, the value of prehospital INR assessment was considered ‘high’ or ‘medium’ (63 %) significantly more often than in patients with non-neurological tracer diagnoses (24 %). Conclusions: Assessment of INR through a POC coagulometer is feasible in prehospital emergency care and provides valuable information on haemostatic parameters in patients. Questionnaire results suggest that POC INR testing may present a valuable technique in selected patients. Whether this information translates into an improved management of respective patients has to be evaluated in further studies

Health Impacts of Catastrophic Climate Change: Expert Workshop. Avoid Dangerous Climate Change (AVOID)

Climate change is likely to have serious and significant impacts on human population health. The mechanisms by which climate change may affect health are becoming better understood. Current quantitative methods of estimating future health impacts rely on disease-specific models that primarily describe relationships between mean values of weather variables and health outcomes and do not address the impacts of extreme events or weather disasters. Extreme events have the potential to disrupt community function, which is of concern for decision-makers. Estimating the magnitude and extent of impacts from low probability high impact events is challenging because there is often no analogue that can provide relevant evidence and that take into account the complexity of factors determining future vulnerability and health impacts (the social determinants of health)

Social sciences research in neglected tropical diseases 2: A bibliographic analysis

The official published version of the article can be found at the link below.Background There are strong arguments for social science and interdisciplinary research in the neglected tropical diseases. These diseases represent a rich and dynamic interplay between vector, host, and pathogen which occurs within social, physical and biological contexts. The overwhelming sense, however, is that neglected tropical diseases research is a biomedical endeavour largely excluding the social sciences. The purpose of this review is to provide a baseline for discussing the quantum and nature of the science that is being conducted, and the extent to which the social sciences are a part of that. Methods A bibliographic analysis was conducted of neglected tropical diseases related research papers published over the past 10 years in biomedical and social sciences. The analysis had textual and bibliometric facets, and focussed on chikungunya, dengue, visceral leishmaniasis, and onchocerciasis. Results There is substantial variation in the number of publications associated with each disease. The proportion of the research that is social science based appears remarkably consistent (<4%). A textual analysis, however, reveals a degree of misclassification by the abstracting service where a surprising proportion of the "social sciences" research was pure clinical research. Much of the social sciences research also tends to be "hand maiden" research focused on the implementation of biomedical solutions. Conclusion There is little evidence that scientists pay any attention to the complex social, cultural, biological, and environmental dynamic involved in human pathogenesis. There is little investigator driven social science and a poor presence of interdisciplinary science. The research needs more sophisticated funders and priority setters who are not beguiled by uncritical biomedical promises

The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change.

Published onlineReviewJournal ArticleThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change is an international, multidisciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions and practitioners across the world. It follows on from the work of the 2015 Lancet Commission, which concluded that the response to climate change could be "the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century". The Lancet Countdown aims to track the health impacts of climate hazards; health resilience and adaptation; health co-benefits of climate change mitigation; economics and finance; and political and broader engagement. These focus areas form the five thematic working groups of the Lancet Countdown and represent different aspects of the complex association between health and climate change. These thematic groups will provide indicators for a global overview of health and climate change; national case studies highlighting countries leading the way or going against the trend; and engagement with a range of stakeholders. The Lancet Countdown ultimately aims to report annually on a series of indicators across these five working groups. This paper outlines the potential indicators and indicator domains to be tracked by the collaboration, with suggestions on the methodologies and datasets available to achieve this end. The proposed indicator domains require further refinement, and mark the beginning of an ongoing consultation process-from November, 2016 to early 2017-to develop these domains, identify key areas not currently covered, and change indicators where necessary. This collaboration will actively seek to engage with existing monitoring processes, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and WHO's climate and health country profiles. The indicators will also evolve over time through ongoing collaboration with experts and a range of stakeholders, and be dependent on the emergence of new evidence and knowledge. During the course of its work, the Lancet Countdown will adopt a collaborative and iterative process, which aims to complement existing initiatives, welcome engagement with new partners, and be open to developing new research projects on health and climate change.The Lancet Countdown would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for its financial and technical support—without which, this research collaboration would not be possible. While carrying out its work, the Lancet Countdown received invaluable technical advice and input from a number of individuals, including Ari Bernstein (Harvard University), Victoria Bignet (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Sarah Chaytor (University College London), Niheer Dasandi (University of Birmingham), Victor Galaz (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Janie Maxwell (University of Melbourne), Slava Mikhaylov (University College London), Neil Morisetti (University College London), Steve Pye (University College London), George Smeeton (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), Olivia Stevenson (University College London), Rebecca Taylor (University College London), and Koko Warner (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). Administrative and communications support was provided by Richard Black (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), Pete Chalkley (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), Tom Fern (European Climate Foundation), Jack Fisher (Lancet Countdown), and Sarah Hurtes (European Climate Foundation). Researchers at Tsinghua University (YB, PG, YL, BX, JY, YY, and CY) wish to express their gratitude to the Cyrus Tang Foundation for financial support

Misalignment between perceptions and actual global burden of disease: evidence from the US population

Significant funding of health programs in low-income countries comes from external sources, mainly private donors and national development agencies of high-income countries. How these external funds are allocated remains a subject of ongoing debate, as studies have revealed that external funding may misalign with the underlying disease burden. One determinant of the priorities set by both private donors and development agencies is the perceptions of populations living in high-income countries about which diseases are legitimate for global health intervention. While research has been conducted on the priorities expressed by recipient communities, relatively less has been done to assess those of the donating country. To investigate people's beliefs about the disease burden in high-income countries, we compared publicly available data from U.S. surveys of people's perceptions of the leading causes of death in developing countries against measures of the actual disease burden from the World Health Organization. We found little correlation between the U.S. public's perception and the actual disease burden, measured as either mortality or disability-adjusted life years. While there is potential for reverse causality, so that donor programs drive public perceptions, these findings suggest that increasing the general population's awareness of the true global disease burden could help better align global health funding with population health needs

Coaching Models of School-Based Prevention and Promotion Programmes: A Qualitative Exploration of UK Teachers' Perceptions

There has been increased interest in recent years regarding the utility of imported universal prevention and promotion (P&P) programmes in UK schools, many of which have a coaching model attached. However, there have been relatively few studies exploring the cultural transferability and social validity of these models, even though evidence suggests that these factors are important to the successful implementation of the programmes, and thus the achievement of the intended outcomes. The aim of the current study was to explore the coaching practices that teachers report experiencing, and to further understanding of the perceived benefts of these coaching practices to teachers. The sample consisted of 33 teachers implementing one of two universal, school-based P&P programmes, Good Behavior Game and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies as part of large-scale, randomised controlled trials. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were analysed thematically utilising a hybrid approach. Teachers typically reported engaging in six distinct practices with their coaches. While the majority of these practices were in line with coaching literature, there were some discrepancies between intended coaching practices and teachers’ reports. The coaching practices were generally perceived to be acceptable to teachers. Two unanticipated practices, validation and motivation, appeared to be of particular value to teachers, although these are not currently a prominent feature in existing coaching models. The fndings provide implications for improving the development of socially valid coaching models for UK schools

Prehospital Partial Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for Exsanguinating Subdiaphragmatic Hemorrhage.

IMPORTANCE: Hemorrhage is the most common cause of preventable death after injury. Most deaths occur early, in the prehospital phase of care. OBJECTIVE: To establish whether prehospital zone 1 (supraceliac) partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (Z1 P-REBOA) can be achieved in the resuscitation of adult trauma patients at risk of cardiac arrest and death due to exsanguination. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational cohort study (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up [IDEAL] 2A design) with recruitment from June 2020 to March 2022 and follow-up until discharge from hospital, death, or 90 days evaluating a physician-led and physician-delivered, urban prehospital trauma service in the Greater London area. Trauma patients aged 16 years and older with suspected exsanguinating subdiaphragmatic hemorrhage, recent or imminent hypovolemic traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) were included. Those with unsurvivable injuries or who were pregnant were excluded. Of 2960 individuals attended by the service during the study period, 16 were included in the study. EXPOSURES: ZI REBOA or P-REBOA. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was the proportion of patients in whom Z1 REBOA and Z1 P-REBOA were achieved. Clinical end points included systolic blood pressure (SBP) response to Z1 REBOA, mortality rate (1 hour, 3 hours, 24 hours, or 30 days postinjury), and survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Femoral arterial access for Z1 REBOA was attempted in 16 patients (median [range] age, 30 [17-76] years; 14 [81%] male; median [IQR] Injury Severity Score, 50 [39-57]). In 2 patients with successful arterial access, REBOA was not attempted due to improvement in clinical condition. In the other 14 patients (8 [57%] of whom were in traumatic cardiac arrest [TCA]), 11 successfully underwent cannulation and had aortic balloons inflated in Z1. The 3 individuals in whom cannulation was unsuccessful were in TCA (failure rate = 3/14 [21%]). Median (IQR) pre-REBOA SBP in the 11 individuals for whom cannulation was successful (5 [46%] in TCA) was 47 (33-52) mm Hg. Z1 REBOA plus P-REBOA was associated with a significant improvement in BP (median [IQR] SBP at emergency department arrival, 101 [77-107] mm Hg; 0 of 10 patients were in TCA at arrival). The median group-level improvement in SBP from the pre-REBOA value was 52 (95% CI, 42-77) mm Hg (P < .004). P-REBOA was feasible in 8 individuals (8/11 [73%]) and occurred spontaneously in 4 of these. The 1- and 3-hour postinjury mortality rate was 9% (1/11), 24-hour mortality was 27% (3/11), and 30-day mortality was 82% (9/11). Survival to hospital discharge was 18% (2/11). Both survivors underwent early Z1 P-REBOA. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, prehospital Z1 P-REBOA is feasible and may enable early survival, but with a significant incidence of late death. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04145271

University lecturers' perspectives on initial teacher education for mental health promotion in schools

Copyright ©2017 Sense Publishers Reproduced with permission of the publisher