Optimal management of the critically Ill: Anaesthesia, monitoring, data capture, and point-of-care technological practices in ovine models of critical care

Animal models of critical illness are vital in biomedical research. They provide possibilities for the investigation of pathophysiological processes that may not otherwise be possible in humans. In order to be clinically applicable, the model should simulate the critical care situation realistically, including anaesthesia, monitoring, sampling, utilising appropriate personnel skill mix, and therapeutic interventions. There are limited data documenting the constitution of ideal technologically advanced large animal critical care practices and all the processes of the animal model. In this paper, we describe the procedure of animal preparation, anaesthesia induction and maintenance, physiologic monitoring, data capture, point-of-care technology, and animal aftercare that has been successfully used to study several novel ovine models of critical illness. The relevant investigations are on respiratory failure due to smoke inhalation, transfusion related acute lung injury, endotoxin-induced proteogenomic alterations, haemorrhagic shock, septic shock, brain death, cerebral microcirculation, and artificial heart studies. We have demonstrated the functionality of monitoring practices during anaesthesia required to provide a platform for undertaking systematic investigations in complex ovine models of critical illness.

No variance for filed orders: Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260

In Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260 the Queensland Court of Appeal examined the relationship between rules 7 (extending and shortening time) and 667 (setting aside) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and held that r667(1) does not enable the court to set aside or vary an order after the order has been filed. The court found that, to the extent that this conclusion was contrary to the decision in McIntosh v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] 1 Qd R 152, the decision in McIntosh was wrong and should not be followed.