To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Patients suffering from an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) associated with an initial shockable rhythm have a better prognosis than their counterparts. The implications of recurrent or refractory malignant arrhythmia in such context remain unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between the number of prehospital shocks delivered and survival to hospital discharge among patients in OHCA.
This cohort study included adult patients with an initial shockable rhythm over a 5-year period from a registry of OHCA in Montreal, Canada. The relationship between the number of prehospital shocks delivered and survival to discharge was described using dynamic probabilities. The association between the number of prehospital shocks delivered and survival to discharge was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.
A total of 1,788 patients (78% male with a mean age of 64 years) were included in this analysis, of whom 536 (30%) received treatments from an advanced care paramedic. A third of the cohort (583 patients, 33%) survived to hospital discharge. The probability of survival was highest with the first shock (33% [95% confidence interval 30%-35%]), but decreased to 8% (95% confidence interval 4%-13%) following nine shocks. A higher number of prehospital shocks was independently associated with lower odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio=0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.85-0.92], p < 0.001).
Survival remains possible even after a high number of shocks for patients suffering from an OHCA with an initial shockable rhythm. However, requiring more shocks is independently associated with worse survival.
Patient sleep quality has a significant impact on recovery. However, most hospital units do not provide an optimal environment for sleep and there are currently no data available on how well patients sleep during their emergency department stay. The main objective of this study was to assess the subjective quality of nighttime sleep and factors that affect sleep in the emergency department (ED).
A prospective sample of patients aged 18 years and older who presented to the ED from July 2015 to October 2015 was investigated. All participants were on stretcher and slept at least one night in the ED. Participants were asked to complete a sleep questionnaire adapted to the ED environment on sleep quality and its potentially modifying factors.
A total of 235 patients participated in the study (mean age: 64±20 years, 51% women). Compared to the week at home prior to admission, subjective sleep quality was lower in the ED (p<0.001): almost half the participants took more than 30 minutes to fall asleep, and they reported waking up 3.5 times per night on average. Lower subjective sleep quality in the ED was associated with higher stress, noise, and pain, as well as with stretcher comfort and lower home sleep quality the week prior to admission.
Subjective sleep quality in the emergency department is not optimal, and is influenced by stress, noise, pain, and stretcher comfort, all potentially modifiable factors.
The management of acute pain constitutes an essential skill of emergency department (ED) physicians. However, the accurate assessment of pain intensity and relief represents a clinically challenging undertaking. Some studies have proposed to define effective pain relief as the patient’s refusal for additional analgesic administration. The aim of this study was to verify whether such a refusal is effectively indicative of pain relief.
This prospective cohort study included ED patients who received single or multiple doses of pain medication for an acute pain problem. Patients were evaluated for pain relief using one Likert scale and two dichotomous questions: Is your pain relieved? and Do you want more analgesics? Non-relieved patients were further analysed using a checklist as to the reasons behind their refusal for supplemental pain medication.
We have recruited 378 adult patients with a mean age of 50.3 years (±19.1); 60% were women and had an initial mean pain level of 7.3 (±2.0) out of 10. We observed that 68 out of 244 patients who were adequately relieved from pain asked for more analgesics (28%), whereas 51 out of 134 patients who were not relieved from pain refused supplemental drugs (38%). Reasons for refusal included wanting to avoid side effects, feeling sufficiently relieved, and disliking the medication’s effects.
Over a third of ED patients in acute pain were not relieved but refused supplemental pain medication. Patients have reported legitimate reasons to decline further analgesics, and this refusal cannot be used as an indication of pain relief.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.