What should doctors wear in the accident and emergency department? Patients' perception.

In many accident and emergency (A&E) departments doctors still wear white coats or their ordinary clothes, rather than a type of uniform, which, should it become contaminated, can be changed easily for a clean uniform. Before a change of clothing to a uniform could be considered in an inner-city A&E department, a study was carried out to assess the public's perception towards different styles of dress. Three hundred and twenty-nine questionnaires were returned by minor injury patients requiring a radiograph. The study was carried out over 3 weeks in January 1993. Each week a different style of dress was worn: week 1--white coats, week 2--normal clothing and week 3--theatre greens. The majority of patients thought that style of dress was important but did not alter their attitude towards the A&E medical staff. Therefore, there is no reason why doctors should not wear a more appropriate uniform that can be changed easily when contaminated.     

The hermeneutics of symptoms

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy - The clinical encounter begins with presentation of an illness experience; but throughout that encounter, something else is constructed from it – a...     

Outcomes after injury: a comparison of workplace and nonworkplace injury

BACKGROUND: Factors affecting recovery from injury are investigated comparing male emergency department patients involved in work-related and non-work-related accidents. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 154 injured employed male emergency department patients recording demographic and accident details, return to work information, and involvement in litigation. Standardized questionnaires measured psychological, physical, and social responses. Evaluations were at admission, and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 18 months after injury. RESULTS: Work-related injuries were less severe than non-work-related injuries (p = 0.006), and more patients became involved in litigation (p = 0.02) and suffered symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (p = 0.04). Psychosocial symptoms increased with nonreturn to work (p < 0.05). Factors predicting return to work include injury severity, blaming others, involvement in litigation, and subsequent physical and social functioning. CONCLUSION: Patients injured at work are more likely to commence litigation and develop symptoms consistent with posttraumatic stress disorder. Nonreturn to work is associated with higher psychosocial morbidity. Return to work is predicted from event and recovery period variables.     

Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: the safety and efficiency of treatment in the accident and emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficiency with which the accident and emergency (A&E) department provides thrombolytic treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: A prospective observational study based in a teaching hospital for one year. All patients who presented with the clinical and electrocardiographic indications for thrombolytic treatment were studied. Patients were grouped according to route of admission. After logarithmic transformation, the "door to needle times" of the groups were compared using a two tailed Student's t test. Arrhythmias and complications after thrombolytic treatment were noted. The appropriateness of the treatment was assessed retrospectively by review of the clinical records and electrocardiograms, judged against locally agreed eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Data from 153 patients were analysed; 138/153 (90%) patients were admitted via the A&E department. The shortest door to needle times were seen in those patients thrombolysed by A&E staff within the A&E department (mean 43.8 minutes). The transfer of A&E patients to the coronary care unit (CCU) was associated with a significant increase in the door to needle time (mean 58.8 minutes, p = 0.004). Only one malignant arrhythmia occurred during the administration of thrombolysis in the A&E department, and this was managed effectively. No arrhythmias occurred during transfer of thrombolysed patients to the CCU. In every case, the decision to administer thrombolysis was retrospectively judged to have been appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The A&E department provides appropriate, safe, and timely thrombolytic treatment for patients with AMI. Transferring A&E patients to the CCU before thrombolysis is associated with an unnecessary treatment delay.