No abstract

Several laboratory studies suggested that induced hypothermia during hemorrhagic shock improves survival. Inhaled hydrogen sulfide (H2S) induced hypothermia and decreased metabolism in mice and rats but not in piglets. We tested the hypothesis that i.v. H2S will induce hypothermia, reduce oxygen consumption (VO2), and improve outcome in prolonged hemorrhagic shock in pigs. We also assessed markers of organ injury (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatine phosphokinase, creatinine, and troponin) and level of protein thiols to monitor H2S metabolism. In a prospective randomized study, pigs were subjected to volume-controlled hemorrhagic shock with limited fluid resuscitation to maintain MAP 30 mmHg or greater. The study group received infusion of H2S at 5 mg·kg·h; the control group received vehicle (n = 8 per group). Dose was based on the highest tolerated dose in pilot studies. Full resuscitation was initiated after 3 h. There were no differences in survival at 24 h between groups (2/8 in H2S vs. 3/8 in control group). Heart rate increased similarly during hemorrhagic shock in both groups. Cardiac output was better preserved in the delayed phase of hemorrhagic shock in the control group. Temperature and VO2 were similar in both groups during hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation. Markers of organ injury and protein thiols markedly increased in both groups with no differences between groups. In conclusion, we were not able to demonstrate the hypothermia-inducing effect or a reduction in VO2 from H2S infusion in our model of hemorrhagic shock in pigs. Our data mirror those seen in piglets and provide additional evidence of difficulty in translating the hypothermia effect of H2S to large animals in a clinically relevant postinsult paradigm.

Over the past decade, community engagement has become a central tenet of US federal doctrine on public health emergency preparedness. Little is known, however, about how the vision of a ready, aware, and involved populace has translated into local practice, or which conditions thus far have advanced community involvement in what is typically considered the province of government authorities and emergency professionals. In 2011-12, to help close that knowledge gap, investigators carried out semistructured qualitative interviews with practitioners (N = 25) from 7 local health departments about which conditions have advanced or inhibited community engagement in public health emergency preparedness. Among the organizational factors identified as enabling local health departments' involvement of community residents and groups in emergency preparedness were a supportive agency leadership and culture, sufficient staffing and programmatic funding, interested and willing partners, and external triggers such as federal grants and disaster experiences that spotlighted the importance of community relationships to effective response. Facing budget and staff cuts, local health departments feel increasingly constrained in efforts to build trusted and lasting preparedness ties with community partners. At the same time, some progress in preparedness partnerships may be possible in the context of agency leadership, culture, and climate that affirms the value of collaboration with the community.

In a public health emergency involving significant surges in patients and shortages of medical staff, supplies, and space, temporarily expanding scopes of practice of certain healthcare practitioners may help to address heightened population health needs. Scopes of practice, which are defined by state practice acts, set forth the range of services that licensed practitioners are authorized to perform. The U.S. has had limited experience with temporarily expanding scopes of practice during emergencies. However, during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response, many states took some form of action to expand the practice scopes of certain categories of practitioners in order to authorize them to administer the pandemic vaccine. No standard legal approach for expanding scopes of practice during emergencies exists across states, and scope of practice expansions during routine, nonemergency times have been the subject of professional society debate and legal action. These issues raise the question of how states could effectively implement expansions for health services beyond administering vaccine and ensure consistency in expansions across states during catastrophic events that require a shift to crisis standards of care. This article provides an overview of scopes of practice, a summary of the range of legal and regulatory approaches used in the U.S. to expand practice scopes for vaccination during the 2009 H1N1 response, and recommendations for future research.