Outpatient treatment of acute psychotic episode with neuroleptic infusions: a retrospective study.

In this retrospective pragmatic study, we define the necessary conditions that allow outpatient low dose intravenous neuroleptization, when hospitalization should otherwise be required. Intravenous neuroleptization is infrequently used in the outpatient treatment of acute psychotic decompensation. Rapid tranquilization with high dosage neuroleptics is controversial, and has a high risk of side effects. The indications for and potential advantages of this method in the perspective of a long-term ambulatory treatment are discussed by comparing a group of outpatients treated with infusions to a group of hospitalized patients. The method offers a satisfactory alternative to hospitalization for subjects who are not in imminent danger (current GAF rating between 20 and 40) and whose normal functioning is good (past year GAF rating = 70). Previous repeated hospitalizations favor the choice of hospitalization over infusion. Its potential advantages are the rapid evolution of the condition, with controlled regression but without psychosocial withdrawal, and an improvement in the patient's attitude towards treatment.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is traditionally treated in hospital. Growing evidence from non randomized prospective studies suggests that a substantial proportion of patients with non-massive PE might be safely treated in the outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins. Based on this evidence, professional societies started to recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive PE. Despite these recommendations, outpatient treatment of non-massive PE appears to be uncommon in clinical practice. The major barriers to PE outpatient care are, firstly, the uncertainty as how to identify low risk patients with PE who are candidates for outpatient care and secondly the lack of high quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating the safety of PE outpatient care compared to traditional inpatient management. Also, although clinical prognostic models, echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers accurately identify low risk patients with PE in prospective studies, the benefit of risk stratification strategies based on these instruments should be demonstrated in prospective management studies and clinical trials before they can be implemented as decision aids to guide PE outpatient treatment. Before high quality evidence documenting the safety of an outpatient treatment approach is published, outpatient management of non-massive PE cannot be generally recommended.

Uptake of new treatment strategies for deep vein thrombosis: an international audit.

OBJECTIVE: Study of the uptake of new medical technologies provides useful information on the transfer of published evidence into usual practice. We conducted an audit of selected hospitals in three countries (Canada, France, and Switzerland) to identify clinical predictors of low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin use and outpatient treatment, and to compare the pace of uptake of these new therapeutic approaches across hospitals. DESIGN: Historical review of medical records. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the medical records of 3043 patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in five Canadian, two French, and two Swiss teaching hospitals from 1994 to 1998. Measures. We explored independent clinical variables associated with LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment, and determined crude and adjusted rates of LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment across hospitals. RESULTS: For the years studied, the overall rates of LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment in the study sample were 34.1 and 15.8%, respectively, with higher rates of use in later years. Many comorbidities were negatively associated with outpatient treatment, and risk-adjusted rates of use of these new approaches varied significantly across hospitals. CONCLUSION: There has been a relatively rapid uptake of LMW heparins and outpatient treatment for DVT in their early years of availability, but the pace of uptake has varied considerably across hospitals and countries.

Insertion dans les soins après une première hospitalisation dans un secteur pour psychose [Linkage to care after first hospitalisation for psychosis]

BACKGROUND: First hospitalisation for a psychotic episode causes intense distress to patients and families, but offers an opportunity to make a diagnosis and start treatment. However, linkage to outpatient psychiatric care remains a notoriously difficult step for young psychotic patients, who frequently interrupt treatment after hospitalisation. Persistence of symptoms, and untreated psychosis may therefore remain a problem despite hospitalisation and proper diagnosis. With persisting psychotic symptoms, numerous complications may arise: breakdown in relationships, loss of family and social support, loss of employment or study interruption, denial of disease, depression, suicide, substance abuse and violence. Understanding mechanisms that might promote linkage to outpatient psychiatric care is therefore a critical issue, especially in early intervention in psychotic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To study which factors hinder or promote linkage of young psychotic patients to outpatient psychiatric care after a first hospitalisation, in the absence of a vertically integrated program for early psychosis. Method. File audit study of all patients aged 18 to 30 who were admitted for the first time to the psychiatric University Hospital of Lausanne in the year 2000. For statistical analysis, chi2 tests were used for categorical variables and t-test for dimensional variables; p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: 230 patients aged 18 to 30 were admitted to the Lausanne University psychiatric hospital for the first time during the year 2000, 52 of them with a diagnosis of psychosis (23%). Patients with psychosis were mostly male (83%) when compared with non-psychosis patients (49%). Furthermore, they had (1) 10 days longer mean duration of stay (24 vs 14 days), (2) a higher rate of compulsory admissions (53% vs 22%) and (3) were more often hospitalised by a psychiatrist rather than by a general practitioner (83% vs 53%). Other socio-demographic and clinical features at admission were similar in the two groups. Among the 52 psychotic patients, 10 did not stay in the catchment area for subsequent treatment. Among the 42 psychotic patients who remained in the catchment area after discharge, 20 (48%) did not attend the scheduled or rescheduled outpatient appointment. None of the socio demographic characteristics were associated with attendance to outpatient appointments. On the other hand, voluntary admission and suicidal ideation before admission were significantly related to attending the initial appointment. Moreover, some elements of treatment seemed to be associated with higher likelihood to attend outpatient treatment: (1) provision of information to the patient regarding diagnosis, (2) discussion about the treatment plan between in- and outpatient staff, (3) involvement of outpatient team during hospitalisation, and (4) elaboration of concrete strategies to face basic needs, organise daily activities or education and reach for help in case of need. CONCLUSION: As in other studies, half of the patients admitted for a first psychotic episode failed to link to outpatient psychiatric care. Our study suggests that treatment rather than patient's characteristics play a critical role in this phenomenon. Development of a partnership and involvement of patients in the decision process, provision of good information regarding the illness, clear definition of the treatment plan, development of concrete strategies to cope with the illness and its potential complications, and involvement of the outpatient treating team already during hospitalisation, all came out as critical strategies to facilitate adherence to outpatient care. While the current rate of disengagement after admission is highly concerning, our finding are encouraging since they constitute strategies that can easily be implemented. An open approach to psychosis, the development of partnership with patients and a better coordination between inpatient and outpatient teams should therefore be among the targets of early intervention programs. These observations might help setting up priorities when conceptualising new programs and facilitate the implementation of services that facilitate engagement of patients in treatment during the critical initial phase of psychotic disorders.

Diarrhées aiguës: propositions de prise en charge ambulatoire [Acute diarrhea: proposal for outpatient management]

Dans la majorité des cas, les diarrhées aiguës sont bénignes et d'évolution spontanément favorable. Il faut cependant savoir reconnaître les situations pouvant mener à des complications, en l'occurrence identifier les diarrhées invasives, inflammatoires, caractérisées par la présence de fièvre, de douleurs abdominales, de ténesmes, de mucus et, ou de sang dans les selles. Celles-ci sont à distinguer des diarrhées sécrétoires, non invasives, non inflammatoires, sans fièvre, généralement aqueuses et volumineuses. En cas de doute diagnostique, l'identification de leucocytes par microscopie ou test à la lactoferrine dans les selles permet d'évoquer une gastroentérite invasive. Les indications à une antibiothérapie empirique dans l'attente du résultat de la coproculture sont la présence d'un syndrome dysentérique (T > 38°C, > 6 selles/24 heures, douleurs abdominales, diarrhées mucopurulentes), l'âge avancé, des comorbidités significatives, une immunosuppression et la présence d'une prothèse endovasculaire. In the majority of the cases, an acute diarrhea is mild and of spontaneously favorable evolution. It is however necessary to know how to recognize the situations being able to lead to complications, in particular to identify the invasive, inflammatory diarrheas, characterized by the presence of fever, abdominal pains, mucus and\or blood. The identification of leukocytes by microscopy or lactoferrine test is helpful. Empiric quinolones treatment is recommended in the presence of dysenteric syndrome (T > 38 degrees C, > 6 stods/24 h 00, abdominal pain muco-purulent diarrhea), advanced age, significant comorbidities, immunosuppression or presence of an endovascular prothesis

Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus outpatient physiotherapy for non specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades the treatment of non-specific low back pain has turned to active modalities, some of which were based on cognitive-behavioural principles. Non-randomised studies clearly favour functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation over outpatient physiotherapy. However, systematic reviews and meta-analysis provide contradictory evidence regarding the effects on return to work and functional status. The aim of the present randomised study was to compare long-term functional and work status after 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation or 18 supervised outpatient physiotherapy sessions. METHODS: 109 patients with non-specific low back pain were randomised to either a 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme, including physical and ergonomic training, psychological pain management, back school and information, or 18 sessions of active outpatient physiotherapy over 9 weeks. Primary outcomes were functional disability (Oswestry) and work status. Secondary outcomes were lifting capacity (Spinal Function Sort and PILE test), lumbar range-of-motion (modified-modified Schöber and fingertip-to-floor tests), trunk muscle endurance (Shirado and Biering-Sörensen tests) and aerobic capacity (modified Bruce test). RESULTS: Oswestry disability index was improved to a significantly greater extent after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to outpatient physiotherapy at follow-up of 9 weeks (P = 0.012), 9 months (P = 0.023) and 12 months (P = 0.011). Work status was significantly improved after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation only (P = 0.012), resulting in a significant difference compared to outpatient physiotherapy at 12 months' follow-up (P = 0.012). Secondary outcome results were more contrasted. CONCLUSIONS: Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation was better than outpatient physiotherapy in improving functional and work status. From an economic point of view, these results should be backed up by a cost-effectiveness study.