Background Treatment options for chronic osmotic demyelination syndrome are limited to case reports and only a very few show complete recovery. We report a case of complete recovery of chronic osmotic demyelination syndrome with plasmapheresis. Case presentation A 43-year-old Sri Lankan man presented with fever, repeated vomiting, unsteady gait, increased tonicity of his right upper limb and paucity of speech for three days. He was treated in the local hospital with antibiotics and antivirals as per central nervous system infection. He had hyponatraemia, which was rapidly corrected with hypertonic saline from 97 to 119 mmol/L. He was transferred to our hospital because of progressive reduction of consciousness, rapidly worsening rigidity and bradykinesia of all four limbs and worsening dysarthria and bradyphrenia. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain was compatible with osmotic demyelination syndrome. He was commenced on plasmapheresis twenty-two days after rapid correction of sodium. He regained independent mobility with complete resolution of rigidity, bradykinesia and speech dysfunction after five cycles of alternate day plasmapheresis. Conclusion Plasmapheresis can be considered as an effective treatment modality in chronic osmotic demyelination syndrome.

BACKGROUND Resuscitation decisions made in advance are especially important to prevent negative patient outcomes at end-of-life. We conducted a clinical audit to assess the current practice of these decisions in Sri Lanka and then introduced interventions to improve the same. MATERIALS AND METHODS An auditor-administered questionnaire developed through a focused group discussion among experts was used to analyze the medical records of deaths during a period of sixty days focusing on advance resuscitation decisions and factors affecting them. The junior doctors directly involved in the care of each patient were interviewed regarding their retrospective judgement about the most appropriate resuscitation decision, which was later compared with the decision of an expert panel, who decided on the most appropriate resuscitation decision based on the medical records of the patient. An educational session for doctors was then conducted to improve their knowledge about advance resuscitation decisions including the importance of meticulous documentation of such decisions. The outcome was assessed after sixty days following the introduction of the intervention using the same questionnaire. RESULTS There was a significant improvement in the number of documented advance resuscitation decisions from 4/40 (10%) to 17/38 (44.73%) (Z = 3.5, P = 0.0006), with a significant increase in DNACPR decisions from 4/40 (10%) to 14/38 (36.8%) (Z = 2.8, P = 0.005) following the intervention. Unsuccessful CPR attempts decreased significantly from 31/40 (77.5%) to 14/38 (36.8%) (Z = 3.6, P = 0.0003) in the post-intervention period. The resuscitation decisions suggested by junior doctors that matched with expert decision increased significantly for both interns ((from 11/40 (27.5%) to 22/38 (57.9%) (Z = 2.7, P = 0.0066)) and registrars ((18/40 (45%) to 27/38 (71.05%) (Z = 2.3, P = 0.0202)) in the post-intervention period. CONCLUSION Documentation and practice regarding advance resuscitation decisions is suboptimal in Sri Lanka. This can be improved by interventions targeting improving the knowledge about the concept and its proper documentation among health care professionals.