The management of airway, breathing, and circulation, and oxygen therapy and monitoring in severely ill patients before admission to intensive care units may frequently be suboptimal. Major consequences may include increased morbidity and mortality and requirement for intensive care. Possible solutions include improved teaching, establishment of medical emergency teams, and widespread debate on the structure and process of acute care.

Objectives-To identify the proportion, and range across intensive care units, of intensive care patients who might potentially be managed on a high dependency unit (HDU) using three different classification systems. Methods-8095 adult patients admitted to 15 intensive care units in the south of England between 1 April 1993 and 31 December 1994 were studied. Patients were identified as potential HDU admissions if their APACHE III derived risk of hospital mortality was s10%, if they were categorised as a low risk monitor (LRM) patient using the Wagner risk stratification method, or if they did not require advanced respiratory support (ARS).Results-4146 patients (51.2%) had an APACHE III derived risk of hospital death of < 10%, 1687 (20.8%) were classified as LRM, and 3860 (47.7%) did not receive ARS. The values for each intensive care unit ranged from 32.8-63.3% (APACHE III group), 7.2-29.9% (LRM group), and 14.4-68.2% (ARS group). No matter which of the three methods was used, there were significant differences between the 15 units (p<0.0001) with regard to the number of potential HDU patients identified within the scored population. Conclusions-The percentage of intensive care patients who might be more appropriately managed in a HDU varies considerably between hospitals, and depends upon both local circumstances and the method used to define a high dependency patient. However, whichever method is used, it appears that significant numbers of patients of low dependency status currently fill intensive care beds in the units studied. If these analyses are correct, the perceived national shortage in intensive care beds might be improved by the development of HDUs.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the best available evidence on the effect of various radiation protection strategies on radiation dose received by proceduralists performing cardiac catheterization procedures involving fluoroscopy. Introduction: Cardiac catheterization procedures under fluoroscopy are the gold standard diagnostic and treatment method for patients with coronary artery disease. The growing demand of procedures means that proceduralists are being exposed to increasing amounts of radiation, resulting in an increased risk of deterministic and stochastic effects. Standard protective strategies and equipment such as lead garments reduce radiation exposure; however, the evidence surrounding additional equipment is contradictory. Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials that compared the use of an additional radiation protection strategy with conventional radiation protection methods were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome of interest was the radiation dose received by the proceduralist during cardiac catheterization procedures. Methods: A three-step search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). Trials published in the English language with adult participants were included. Trials published from database inception until July 2019 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials. Quantitative data were extracted from the included papers using the JBI data extraction tool. Results that could not be pooled in meta-analysis were reported in a narrative form. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included in the review. Six radiation protection strategies were assessed: leaded and unleaded pelvic or arm drapes, transradial protection board, remotely controlled mechanical contrast injector, extension tubing for contrast injection, real-time radiation monitor, and a reduction in frame rate to 7.5 frames per second. Pooled data from two trials demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the mean radiation dose (P < 0.00001) received by proceduralists performing transfemoral cardiac catheterization on patients who received a leaded pelvic drape compared to standard protection. One trial that compared the use of unleaded pelvic drapes placed on patients compared to standard protection reported a statistically significant decrease (P = 0.004) in the mean radiation dose received by proceduralists. Compared to standard protection, two trials that used unleaded arm drapes for patients, one trial that used a remotely controlled mechanical contrast injector, and one trial that used a transradial protection board demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the radiation dose received by proceduralists. Similarly, using a frame rate of 7.5 versus 15 frames per second and monitoring radiation dose in real-time radiation significantly lowered the radiation dose received by the proceduralist. One trial demonstrated no statistically significant difference in proceduralist radiation dose among those who used the extension tubing compared to standard protection (P = 1). Conclusions: This review provides evidence to support the use of leaded pelvic drapes for patients as an additional radiation protection strategy for proceduralists performing transradial or transfemoral cardiac catheterization. Further studies on the effectiveness of using a lower fluoroscopy frame rate, real-time radiation monitor, and transradial protection board are needed.

No abstract