Management and prognosis of status epilepticus according to hospital setting: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of status epilepticus (SE) is based on relatively little evidence although several guidelines have been published. A recent study reported a worse SE prognosis in a large urban setting as compared to a peripheral hospital, postulating better management in the latter. The aim of this study was to analyse SE episodes occurring in different settings and address possible explanatory variables regarding outcome, including treatment quality. METHODS: Over six months we prospectively recorded consecutive adults with SE (fit lasting five or more minutes) at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV) and in six peripheral hospitals (PH) in the same region. Demographical, historical and clinical variables were collected, including SE severity estimation (STESS score) and adherence to Swiss SE treatment guidelines. Outcome at discharge was categorised as "good" (return to baseline), or "poor" (persistent neurological sequelae or death). RESULTS: Of 54 patients (CHUV: 36; PH 18), 33% had a poor outcome. Whilst age, SE severity, percentage of SE episodes lasting less than 30 minutes and total SE duration were similar, fewer patients had a good outcome at the CHUV (61% vs 83%; OR 3.57; 95% CI 0.8-22.1). Mortality was 14% at the CHUV and 5% at the PH. Most treatments were in agreement with national guidelines, although less often in PH (78% vs 97%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Although not statistically significant, we observed a slightly worse SE prognosis in a large academic centre as compared to smaller hospitals. Since SE severity was similar in the two settings but adherence to national treatment guidelines was higher in the academic centre, further investigation on the prognostic role of SE treatment and outcome determinants is required.

Influence of socioeconomic factors on delays, management and outcome amongst patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

The outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is strongly affected by time delays. In this study, we sought to identify the impact of specific socioeconomic factors on time delays, subsequent STEMI management and outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI, who came from a well-defined region of the French part of Switzerland. A total of 402 consecutive patients undergoing pPCI for STEMI in a large tertiary hospital were retrospectively studied. Symptom-to-first-medical-contact time was analysed for the following socioeconomic factors: level of education, origin and marital status. Main exclusion criteria were: time delay beyond 12 hours, previous treatment with fibrinolytic agents or patients immediately referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Therefore, 222 patients were finally included. At 1 year, there was no difference in mortality between the different socioeconomic groups. Furthermore, there was no difference in management characteristics between them. Symptom-to-first-medical-contact time was significantly longer for patients with a low level of education, Swiss citizens and unmarried patients, with median differences of 23 minutes, 18 minutes and 13 minutes, respectively (p <0.05). Nevertheless, no difference was found regarding in-hospital management and clinical outcome. This study demonstrates that symptom-to-first-medical-contact time is longer amongst people with a lower educational level, Swiss citizens and unmarried people. Because of the low mortality rate in general, these differences in delays did not affect clinical outcomes. Still, tertiary prevention measures should particularly focus on these vulnerable populations.

Gestion et communication de l'information en surveillance biologique. Une approche éthique et interdisciplinaire [Biomonitoring information management and communication: an ethical and interdisciplinary perspective]

This study explores biomonitoring communication with workers exposed to risks. Using a qualitative approach, semi-directive interviews were performed. Results show that occupational physicians and workers share some perceptions, but also point out communication gaps. Consequently, informed consent is not guaranteed. This article proposes some recommendations for occupational physicians' practices.

Institutional legacies, employment and professional integration of non EU/EEA doctors in France

Internationally, policies for attracting highly-skilled migrants have become the guidelines mainly used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Governments are implementing specific procedures to capture and facilitate their mobility. However, all professions are not equal when it comes to welcoming highly-skilled migrants. The medical profession, as a protective market, is one of these. Taking the case of non-EU/EEA doctors in France, this paper shows that the medical profession defined as the closed labour market, remains the most controversial in terms of professional integration of migrants, protectionist barriers to migrant competition and challenge of medical shortage. Based on the path-dependency approach, this paper argues that non-EU/EEA doctors' issues in France derive from a complex historical process of interaction between standards settled in the past, particularly the historical power of medical corporatism, the unexpected long-term effects of French hospital reforms of 1958, and budgetary pressures. Theoretically, this paper shows two significant findings. Firstly, the French medical system has undergone a series of transformations unthinkable in the strict sense of a path-dependence approach: an opening of the medical profession to foreign physicians in the context of the Europeanisation of public policy, acceptance of non-EU/EEA doctors in a context of medical shortage and budgetary pressures. Secondly, there is no change of the overall paradigm: significantly, the recruitment policies of non-EU/EEA doctors continue to highlight the imprint of the past and reveal a significant persistence of prejudices. Non-EU/EEA doctors are not considered legitimate doctors even if they have the qualifications of physicians which are legitimate in their country and which can be recognised in other receiving countries.