The mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units with haematological malignancy is high. A humane approach to the management of the critically ill as well as efficient use of limited resources requires careful selection of those patients who are most likely to benefit from intensive care. To delineate more accurately the factors influencing outcome in these patients the records of 60 consecutive admissions to the intensive care unit (37 male, 23 female) with haematological malignancy were reviewed retrospectively. Fifty patients were in acute respiratory failure, most commonly (34 patients) with a combination of pneumonia and septicaemic shock. The severity of the acute illness was assessed by the APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II) score and number of organ systems affected. Thirteen patients survived to leave hospital. The mortality of patients with haematological malignancy was consistently higher than predicted from a large validation study of APACHE II in a mixed population of critically ill patients. Moreover, no patient with an APACHE II score of greater than 26 survived. Mortality among the 22 patients with relapsed malignancy (21 deaths), was significantly higher than among the 35 patients at first presentation (26 deaths). On discharge from the intensive care unit all survivors had responded well to chemotherapy and had normal or raised peripheral white cell counts. They included seven patients who had recovered from leucopenia (white cell count <0.5 × 109/1). In contrast, 36 of the 47 patients who died were leucopenic at the time of death. The overall mortality of critically ill patients with haematological malignancy is higher than equivalently ill patients without cancer. The dysfunction of an increasing number of organ systems, an APACHE II score of greater than 30, failure of the malignancy to respond to chemotherapy, and persistent leucopenia all point to a poor outcome.

No abstract

The hands of the surgeon are most likely to be directly exposed to ionizing radiation during fluoroscopic screening in the orthopaedic theatre. There is however little information available on the level of exposure to radiation during the normal working pattern of individual surgeons. The purpose of this study was to directly measure the radiation exposure to the hands during fluoroscopic screening in a series of consecutive cases over a month in order to establish whether these staff need to be designated classified persons, and if not, whether they need to be routinely monitored. Extremity monitoring was carried out using thermoluminescent dosimeters. The dosimeter was secured to the operating surgeon's dominant index finger. 44 procedures were carried out by nine different surgeons. The total radiation dose received per surgeon ranged from 48-2329 microSv. In 80% of procedures the dose of radiation to the surgeon's hand was less than 100 microSv. The extrapolated annual dose, even for the surgeon with the highest radiation exposure, was well below the annual dose limit for extremities of 500 mSv per year recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and embodied in the Ionizing Radiations Regulations 1985. Despite the relatively low doses of radiation received by surgeons in this study, occupational exposure to all personnel should be kept to the lowest practicable levels, and a review of procedures, including dose measurements, from time to time is advised.

Surgeons provide more accurate time estimates than does the scheduling software as it is used in our institution. Regression modeling effects modest improvements in accuracy. Further improvements would be likely if the hospital information system could provide timely historical data and feedback to the surgeons.

No abstract