AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF LOST WORKDAY OCCUPATIONAL BURN INJURIES

Background research consisted of a hospital case series of all adult burn patients (n = 162) admitted to John Sealy Hospital's burn unit from January 1978 to June 1979. Comparisons between occupationally and nonoccupationally burned adults demonstrated that occupationally burned adults were significantly more likely to have been active in the burn injury event and to have changed jobs during the prior year. They were significantly less likely to have physical or mental problems which contributed to sustaining the burn injury. Comparisons between occupational and nonoccupational burn injury events concluded that occupational burn injury events were significantly more likely to involve multiple sources of energy, sparks as the source of ignition and gases as the source of combustion. Other salient characteristics of occupational burn injuries indicated that subsequent research should focus upon lost workday occupational burns and other injuries sustained by blue-collar petrochemical workers employed in Galveston County, Texas.^ Subsequent research consisted of a historical cohort study of occupational injuries sustained in 1979 by a cohort of blue-collar petrochemical workers (n = 1771) who belonged to O.C.A.W. Local 4-449 in Texas City, Texas. Specific cohort injury rates included 15.08 occupational injuries per 100 person work-years, 11.98 lost workday occupational injuries per 100 person work-years, and 1.64 lost workday occupational burn injuries per 100 person work-years. Salient results from this study indicate that burn injuries are a very important type (in terms of both frequency and severity) of occupational injury sustained by blue-collar petrochemical workers, pipefitters are at greatest risk of lost workday injuries and lost workday burn injuries, company-specific experiences are comparable for lost workday occupational injuries, differences among company-specific nonlost workday occupational injury experiences may not be "safety-related", and minimal job-specific experience may not place employees at greater risk of lost workday burn injuries.^

Puerperal Fever from Hippocrates to Pasteur

The death of a mother in childbirth leaving a newborn deserted is a sort of a desecration. This was a frequent event for early physicians. It was felt to be caused by miasmas or punishment from the gods. DaVinci felt the cause was milk stasis, Hippocrates - lochia, Virchow - weather. Then came Semmelweis, Pasteur and Lister. They started a battle with ignorance, hospital administration, budget and academic politics. Ending with the murder of Semmelweis!

Errors in the administration of medication in inpatient hospitals: A systematic review of the research literature on commercial computerized physician order entry systems

Errors in the administration of medication represent a significant loss of medical resources and pose life altering or life threatening risks to patients. This paper considered the question, what impact do Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems have on medication errors in the hospital inpatient environment? Previous reviews have examined evidence of the impact of CPOE on medication errors, but have come to ambiguous conclusions as to the impact of CPOE and decision support systems (DSS). Forty-three papers were identified. Thirty-one demonstrated a significant reduction in prescribing error rates for all or some drug types; decreases in minor errors were most often reported. Several studies reported increases in the rate of duplicate orders and failures to remove contraindicated drugs, often attributed to inappropriate design or to an inability to operate the system properly. The evidence on the effectiveness of CPOE to reduce errors in medication administration is compelling though it is limited by modest study sample sizes and designs. ^

The Hospital Study of the City of Houston and Harris County

In 1941 the Texas Legislature appropriated $500,000 to the Board of Regents of the University of Texas to establish a cancer research hospital. The M. D. Anderson Foundation offered to match the appropriation with a grant of an equal sum and to provide a permanent site in Houston. In August, 1942 the Board of Regent of the University and the Trustees of the Foundation signed an agreement to embark on this project. This institution was to be the first one in the medical center, which was incorporated in October, 1945. The Board of Trustees of the Texas Medical Center commissioned a hospital survey to: - Define the needed hospital facilities in the area - Outline an integrated program to meet these needs - Define the facilities to be constructed - Prepare general recommendations for efficient progress The Hospital Study included information about population, hospitals, and other health care and education facilities in Houston and Harris County at that time. It included projected health care needs for future populations, education needs, and facility needs. It also included detailed information on needs for chronic illnesses, a school of public health, and nursing education. This study provides valuable information about the general population and the state of medicine in Houston and Harris County in the 1940s. It gives a unique perspective on the anticipated future as civic leaders looked forward in building the city and region. This document is critical to an understanding of the Texas Medical Center, Houston and medicine as they are today. SECTIONS INCLUDE: Abstract The Abstract was a summary of the 400 page document including general information about the survey area, community medical assets, and current and projected medical needs which the Texas Medical Center should meet. The 123 recommendations were both general (e.g., 12. “That in future planning, the present auxiliary department of the larger hospitals be considered inadequate to carry an added teaching research program of any sizable scope.”) and specific (e.g., 22. That 14.3% of the total acute bed requirement be allotted for obstetric care, reflecting a bed requirement of 522 by 1950, increasing to 1,173 by 1970.”) Section I: Survey Area This section basically addressed the first objective of the survey: “define the needed hospital facilities in the area.” Based on the admission statistics of hospitals, Harris County was included in the survey, with the recognition that growth from out-lying regional areas could occur. Population characteristics and vital statistics were included, with future trends discussed. Each of the hospitals in the area and government and private health organizations, such as the City-County Welfare Board, were documented. Statistics on the facilities use and capacity were given. Eighteen recommendations and observations on the survey area were given. Section II: Community Program This section basically addressed the second objective of the survey: “outline an integrated program to meet these needs.” The information from the Survey Area section formed the basis of the plans for development of the Texas Medical Center. In this section, specific needs, such as what medical specialties were needed, the location and general organization of a medical center, and the academic aspects were outlined. Seventy-four recommendations for these plans were provided. Section III: The Texas Medical Center The third and fourth objectives are addressed. The specific facilities were listed and recommendations were made. Section IV: Special Studies: Chronic Illness The five leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer, “apoplexy”, nephritis, and tuberculosis) were identified and statistics for morbidity and mortality provided. Diagnostic, prevention and care needs were discussed. Recommendations on facilities and other solutions were made. Section IV: Special Studies: School of Public Health An overview of the state of schools of public health in the US was provided. Information on the direction and need of this special school was also provided. Recommendations on development and organization of the proposed school were made. Section IV: Special Studies: Needs and Education Facilities for Nurses Nursing education was connected with hospitals, but the changes to academic nursing programs were discussed. The needs for well-trained nurses in an expanded medical environment were anticipated to result in significant increased demands of these professionals. An overview of the current situation in the survey area and recommendations were provided. Appendix A Maps, tables and charts provide background and statistical information for the previous sections. Appendix B Detailed census data for specific areas of the survey area in the report were included. Sketches of each of the fifteen hospitals and five other health institutions showed historical information, accreditations, staff, available facilities (beds, x-ray, etc.), academic capabilities and financial information.

Comparison of two strategies for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: In-hospital outcomes analysis

A strategy of pre-hospital reduced dose fibrinolytic administration coupled with urgent coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with STEMI (FAST-PCI) has been found to be superior to primary PCI (PPCI) alone. A coordinated STEMI system-of-care that includes FAST-PCI might offer better outcomes than pre-hospital diagnosis and STEMI team activation followed by PPCI alone. We compared the in-hospital outcomes for patients treated with the FAST-PCI approach with outcomes for patients treated with the PPCI approach during a pause in the FAST-PCI protocol. In-hospital data for 253 STEMI patients (03/2003–12/2009), treated with FAST-PCI protocol were compared to 124 patients (12/2009–08/2011), treated with PPCI strategy alone. In-hospital mortality was the primary endpoint. Stroke, major bleeding, and reinfarction during index hospitalization were secondary endpoints. Comparing the strategies used during the two time intervals, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower with FAST-PCI than with PPCI (2.77% vs. 10.48%, p = 0.0017). Rates of stroke, reinfarction and major bleeding were similar between the two groups. There was a lower frequency of pre- PCI TIMI 0 flow (no patency) seen in patients treated with FAST-PCI compared to the PPCI patients (26.7% vs. 62.7%, p<0.0001). Earlier infarct related artery patency in the FAST-PCI group had a favorable impact on the incidence of cardiogenic shock at hospital admission (FAST-PCI- 3.1% vs. PPCI- 20.9%, p<0.0001). The FAST-PCI strategy was associated with earlier infarct related artery patency and the lower incidence of cardiogenic shock on hospital arrival, as well as with reduced in-hospital mortality among STEMI patients.^

Estimates of hospital and physician costs of epilepsy in the United States for 1995 comparing the provider -based survey method and a patient -based medical charts and billing method

This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^