Search

Objective: To review the clinical effects of nebulized heparin and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with smoke inhalation injury (IHI) and provide recommendations for use. Data Sources: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was completed from database inception through April 15, 2020, using terms: heparin, acetylcysteine, smoke inhalation injury, and burn injury. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All studies pertaining to efficacy and safety of nebulized heparin and/or NAC for IHI in adult patients were evaluated. Reference lists were reviewed for additional publications. Nonhuman studies, non-English, and case report publications were excluded. Data Synthesis: Eight studies were included. Four demonstrated positive outcomes, 3 demonstrated no benefit or possible harm, and 1 assessed safety. Supporting trials treated patients within 48 hours of injury with 10 000 units of nebulized heparin with NAC for 7 days or until extubation. Two trials with negative findings treated patients within 72 hours, or unspecified, with 5000 units of nebulized heparin with NAC for 7 days, while the third used 25 000 units within 36 hours but was grossly underpowered for analysis. Clinical findings include reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and improved lung function with possible increase risk of pneumonia and no evidence of increased bleeding risk. Conclusions: Nebulized heparin may improve oxygenation and reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in IHI. If nebulized heparin is used, 10 000 units every 4 hours alternating with NAC and albuterol at 4-hour intervals is recommended. Sterile technique should be emphasized. Monitoring for bronchospasm or new-onset pneumonia should be considered.

Background Mobile device use has become almost ubiquitous in daily life and therefore includes use by doctors in clinical settings. There has been little study as to the patterns of use and impact this has on doctors in the workplace and how negatively or positively it impacts at the point of care. Aim To explore how doctors use mobile devices in the clinical setting and understand drivers for use. Methods A mixed methods study was used with doctors in a paediatric and adult teaching hospital in 2013. A paper-based survey examined mobile device usage data by doctors in the clinical setting. Focus groups explored doctors' reasons for using or refraining from using mobile devices in the clinical setting, and their attitudes about others' use. Results The survey, completed by 109 doctors, showed that 91% owned a smartphone and 88% used their mobile devices frequently in the clinical setting. Trainees were more likely than consultants to use their mobile devices for learning and accessing information related to patient care, as well as for personal communication unrelated to work. Focus group data highlighted a range of factors that influenced doctors to use personal mobile devices in the clinical setting, including convenience for medical photography, and factors that limited use. Distraction in the clinical setting due to use of mobile devices was a key issue. Personal experience and confidence in using mobile devices affected their use, and was guided by role modelling and expectations within a medical team. Conclusion Doctors use mobile devices to enhance efficiency in the workplace. In the current environment, doctors are making their own decisions based on balancing the risks and benefits of using mobile devices in the clinical setting. There is a need for guidelines around acceptable and ethical use that is patient-centred and that respects patient privacy.

mHealth is transforming health care, yet few studies have evaluated patient and carer perceptions of the use of smartphones at the patient bedside. In this study, 70 patients and carers answered a short survey on health professionals' use of mobile devices. Half the participants were tolerant of doctors using such devices if it was work-related; others believed it was a distraction and not beneficial to patient care. Changes in practice and patient education may be needed to enable effective use of mobile devices in health.

Objective: The present study aimed to assess the prevalence and predictors of anxiety and depression in Australian chronic hepatitis C (CHC) outpatients. Method: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores at referral and other patient data was analysed for 395 CHC outpatients attending the Royal Adelaide Hospital liver clinic from 2006 to 2010. Results: Results revealed probable prevalence rates of 41% for anxiety and 27% for depression. CHC patients had rates of anxiety and depression 1.2 and 2.4 times higher than community norms, respectively. Younger patients were found to experience increased anxiety, while married patients or those in a de facto relationship experienced decreased anxiety and depression. Conclusion: Regular psychiatric screening, and subsequent referral for mental health treatment, where necessary, is recommended for Australian CHC patients. Younger patients or those lacking social supports may be at increased risk. Research is needed to develop and evaluate psychological interventions.