A standard operation procedure and a pilot water testing for herbicides in northwest Harris County, Texas

Herbicides are used to control the growth of weeds along highways, power lines, and many other urban locations. Exposure to herbicides has been linked to adverse health outcomes. This study was initiated to pretest for the presence of herbicides in multiple water sources near intersections in a corridor in the Northwest Harris County (specifically in the Highway 6/FM 1960, North Freeway 45, US 290 and S 99 corridor). Roadside water and tap water samples were collected and analyzed for herbicides using the established Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 515.4: "Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Micro-extraction, Derivatization, and Fast Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection." A standard operating procedure (adapted from the US EPA Method 515.4) was developed for subsequent, larger studies of environmental fate of herbicides and non-occupational exposure risks. Preliminary testing of 16 water samples was performed to pretest the existence of trace herbicides; all concentrations that were greater than the minimum reporting limits of each analyte are reported with a 99 percent confidence. This study failed to find concentrations above the limits of detection of the method in any of the samples collected on June 15, 2008. However, this does not indicate that the waters around the NW Harris County are free of herbicides and metabolites. A larger and repeated sampling in the region would be necessary to make that claim. ^

Development of a standard sign-out procedure for clinicians in a pediatric intensive care unit

Background: Poor communication among health care providers is cited as the most common cause of sentinel events involving patients. Sign-out of patient data at the change of clinician shifts is a component of communication that is especially vulnerable to errors. Sign-outs are particularly extensive and complex in intensive care units (ICUs). There is a paucity of validated tools to assess ICU sign-outs. ^ Objective: To design a valid and reliable survey tool to assess the perceptions of Pediatric ICU (PICU) clinicians about sign-out. ^ Design: Cross-sectional, web-based survey ^ Setting: Academic hospital, 31-bed PICU ^ Subjects: Attending faculty, fellows, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. ^ Interventions: A survey was designed with input from a focus group and administered to PICU clinicians. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency and validity of the survey tool were assessed. ^ Measurements and Main Results: Forty-eight PICU clinicians agreed to participate. We had 42(88%) and 40(83%) responses in the test and retest phases. The mean scores for the ten survey items ranged from 2.79 to 3.67 on a five point Likert scale with no significant test-retest difference and a Pearson correlation between pre and post answers of 0.65. The survey item scores showed internal consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.85. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three constructs: efficacy of sign-out process, recipient satisfaction and content applicability. Seventy eight % clinicians affirmed the need for improvement of the sign-out process and 83% confirmed the need for face- to-face verbal sign-out. A system-based sign-out format was favored by fellows and advanced level practitioners while attendings preferred a problem-based format (p=0.003). ^ Conclusions: We developed a valid and reliable survey to assess clinician perceptions about the ICU sign-out process. These results can be used to design a verbal template to improve and standardize the sign-out process.^

Illustrated Catalogue of Standard Surgical Instruments and Allied Lines

Section "A": Dissecting and Post-Mortem Instruments Diagnostic Instruments and Apparatus Microscopes and Microscopic Accessories Laboratory Apparatus and Glass Ware Apparatus for Blood and Urine Analysis Apparatus for Phlebotomy, Cupping and Leeching Apparatus for Infusion and Transfusion Syringes for Aspiration and Injection Osteological Preparations Section "B": Anaesthetic, General Operating, Osteotomy, Trepanning, Bullet, Pocket Case, Cautery, Ligatures, Sutures, Dressings, Etc. Section "B" continued Section "C": Eye, Ear, Nasal, Dermal, Oral, Tonsil, Tracheal, Laryngeal,Esophageal, Stomach, Intestinal, Gall Bladder Section "C": continued Section "D": Rectal, Phimosis, Prostatic, Vesical, Urethral, Ureteral, Instruments Section "E": Gynecic, Hysterectomy, Obstetrical, Instrument Satchels, Medicine Cases Section "F": Electric Cautery Transformers, Electro-Cautery Burners and Accessories, Electric Current Controllers, Electro-Diagnostic Outfits, Electrolysis Instruments Electro-Therapeutic Lamps, Faradic Batteries, Galvanic Batteries Section "G": Office Furniture, Office Sterilizing Apparatus, Hospital Supplies, Surgical Rubber Goods, Sick Room Utensils, Invalid Rolling Chairs, Invalid Supplies Section "H": Artificial Limbs, Deformity Apparatus, Fracture Apparatus, Splints, Splint Material, Elastic Hosiery, Abdominal Supporters, Crutches, Trusses, Suspensories, Etc. Index

A simulation study of the standard design, the rolling six design, the CRM, and the modified CRM in Phase I clinical trials

The Phase I clinical trial is considered the "first in human" study in medical research to examine the toxicity of a new agent. It determines the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of a new agent, i.e., the highest dose in which toxicity is still acceptable. Several phase I clinical trial designs have been proposed in the past 30 years. The well known standard method, so called the 3+3 design, is widely accepted by clinicians since it is the easiest to implement and it does not need a statistical calculation. Continual reassessment method (CRM), a design uses Bayesian method, has been rising in popularity in the last two decades. Several variants of the CRM design have also been suggested in numerous statistical literatures. Rolling six is a new method introduced in pediatric oncology in 2008, which claims to shorten the trial duration as compared to the 3+3 design. The goal of the present research was to simulate clinical trials and compare these phase I clinical trial designs. Patient population was created by discrete event simulation (DES) method. The characteristics of the patients were generated by several distributions with the parameters derived from a historical phase I clinical trial data review. Patients were then selected and enrolled in clinical trials, each of which uses the 3+3 design, the rolling six, or the CRM design. Five scenarios of dose-toxicity relationship were used to compare the performance of the phase I clinical trial designs. One thousand trials were simulated per phase I clinical trial design per dose-toxicity scenario. The results showed the rolling six design was not superior to the 3+3 design in terms of trial duration. The time to trial completion was comparable between the rolling six and the 3+3 design. However, they both shorten the duration as compared to the two CRM designs. Both CRMs were superior to the 3+3 design and the rolling six in accuracy of MTD estimation. The 3+3 design and rolling six tended to assign more patients to undesired lower dose levels. The toxicities were slightly greater in the CRMs.^