Search

Background: Digitization is spreading exponentially in medical care, with improved availability of electronic devices. Guidelines and standard operating procedures (SOPs) form an important part of daily clinical routine, and adherence is associated with improved outcomes., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate a digital solution for the maintenance and distribution of SOPs and guidelines in 2 different anesthesiology departments in Switzerland., Methods: A content management system (CMS), WordPress, was set up in 2 tertiary-level hospitals within 1 year: the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at the Kantonsspital Lucerne in Lucerne, Switzerland, as an open-access system, followed by a similar system for internal usage in the Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine of the Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, in Bern, Switzerland. We analyzed the requirements and implementation processes needed to successfully set up these systems, and we evaluated the systems' impact by analyzing content and usage., Results: The systems' generated exportable metadata, such as traffic and content. Analysis of the exported metadata showed that the Lucerne website had 269 pages managed by 44 users, with 88,124 visits per month (worldwide access possible), and the Bern website had 341 pages managed by 35 users, with 1765 visits per month (access only possible from within the institution). Creation of an open-access system resulted in third-party interest in the published guidelines and SOPs. The implementation process can be performed over the course of 1 year and setup and maintenance costs are low., Conclusions: A CMS, such as WordPress, is a suitable solution for distributing and managing guidelines and SOPs. Content is easily accessible and is accessed frequently. Metadata from the system allow live monitoring of usage and suggest that the system be accepted and appreciated by the users. In the future, Web-based solutions could be an important tool to handle guidelines and SOPs, but further studies are needed to assess the effect of these systems., (©Kaspar F Bachmann, Christian Vetter, Lars Wenzel, Christoph Konrad, Andreas P Vogt. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.08.2019.)

Ultrasound has significantly increased safety and effectiveness in regional anesthesia. However, little is known about its clinical use. We studied clinical approaches currently used by anesthesiologists, conducted a nationwide survey, and analyzed data collected in ordered logistic regression models. All active members of the Swiss Society for Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation (SSAR/SGAR) were asked to participate. Reported practice in nerve localization, safety, and techniques used for peripheral nerve blocks (PNB) were main outcome measures. Experience ranged from 3 to >30 years. The mean number of block techniques mastered was 11.5 ± 5.9. Standard monitoring was regularly used, whereas sterile coats were less frequently used by anesthesiologists who self-estimated a higher level of expertise in PNB (ordered logit coefficient -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02, P < 0.001; pseudo r2 = 0.019; probability > Chi2 = 0.02). The more self-estimated expertise anesthesiologists had, the less likely they were to use nerve stimulation in combination with ultrasound (dual guidance) (ordered logit coefficient -0.31; 95% CI -0.85 to -0.03: P = 0.03; pseudo r2 = 0.007; probability > Chi2 = 0.05). The high share of reported standard monitoring meets the recommendations of the Helsinki Patient Safety Declaration. Dual guidance appears to be the preferred approach for safely localizing nerves for PNB in Switzerland.

Background: Glucose management is challenging in patients who require nutritional support in hospital. We aimed to assess whether fully closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glycaemic control compared with conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy in inpatients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition or both., Methods: We did a two-centre (UK and Switzerland), open-label, randomised controlled trial in adult inpatients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition (or both) who required subcutaneous insulin therapy. Patients recruited from non-critical care surgical and medical wards were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated minimisation schedule (stratified by type of nutritional support [parenteral nutrition on or off] and pre-study total daily insulin dose [<50 or ≥50 units]) to receive fully closed-loop insulin delivery with faster-acting insulin aspart (closed-loop group) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy (control group) given in accordance with local clinical practice. Continuous glucose monitoring in the control group was masked to patients, ward staff, and investigators. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 15 days or until hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that sensor glucose concentration was in target range (5·6-10·0 mmol/L), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774565., Findings: Between Feb 8, 2018, and Sept 21, 2018, 90 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the closed-loop group (n=21) or the control group (n=22). The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range was 68·4% [SD 15·5] in the closed-loop group and 36·4% [26·6] in the control group (difference 32·0 percentage points [95% CI 18·5-45·5; p<0·0001]). One serious adverse event occurred in each group (one cardiac arrest in the control group and one episode of acute respiratory failure in the closed-loop group), both of which were unrelated to study interventions. There were no adverse events related to study interventions in either group. No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia with ketonaemia occurred in either study group., Interpretation: Closed-loop insulin delivery is an effective treatment option to improve glycaemic control in patients receiving nutritional support in hospital., Funding: Diabetes UK, Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, and European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY 4·0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)