Modern management of head injuries

Management of the head-injured patient is designed to prevent secondary injury and to provide the neurosurgeon with a live patient who has some hope of recovery. This review sets out the background essentials for the non-neurosurgeon dealing with the initial care of a head-injured patient.

Effect of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial. Setting: General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems. Participants: 903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices. Intervention: Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12). Results: At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03). Conclusions: Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.

The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.