Evaluierung der NEF-Fehl- und Übergabeeinsätze im Raum Innsbruck

Die Anaesthesiologie - Die Qualität eines Rettungssystems zeichnet sich auch durch den effizienten Einsatz seiner personellen und Fahrzeugressourcen aus. So können im berechtigten Fall...     

A comparison of the academic impact of plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland using bibliometric analysis

Academic output is just one aspect of a successful career as a plastic surgeon. However, for those with a strong interest in academia, the academic output of a department will likely be a key factor when deciding how to rank jobs. The aim of this study was to quantify and rank the academic output of plastic surgery units across the UK and Ireland. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Bibliometric analysis tool was used to collate cumulative (1950–2016), 10 year (2006–2016) and 3 years (2013–2015) research output data for plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. Sixty-six plastic surgery units were identified. Departments were ranked for each time period according to the number of papers produced, number of citations (Nc) and h-index (a measure of the impact of scientific output). The top 3 departments for number of papers in the last 10 years were The Royal Free Hospital, London (226) Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford (218), and Morriston Hospital and Swansea (188). The top 3 for h-number were The Royal Free Hospital (21) Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester (18) and Morriston Hospital (17). Academic output varies across plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. A number of departments have consistently maintained high academic outputs across the years and will be of interest to surgeons hoping to pursue a career in academia.     

Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases,reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness

To determine percent of patients without malignancy and ≤ 40 years of age with high cumulative radiation doses through recurrent CT exams and assess imaging appropriateness. From the cohort of patients who received cumulative effective dose (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv over a 5-year period, a sub-set was identified with non-malignant disease. The top 50 clinical indications leading to multiple CTs were determined. Clinical decision support (CDS) system scores were analyzed using a widely adopted standard of 1–3 (red) as “not usually appropriate,” 4–6 (yellow) “may or may not be appropriate,” and 7–9 (green) “usually appropriate.” Clinicians reviewed patient records to assess compliance with appropriate use criteria (AUC). 9.6% of patients in our series were with non-malignant conditions and 1.4% with age ≤ 40 years. CDS scores (rounded) were 2% red, 38% yellow, 27% green, and 33% unscored CTs. Clinical society guidelines for CT exams, wherever available, were followed in 87.5 to 100% of cases. AUCs were not available for several clinical indications as also referral guidelines for serial CT imaging. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease. We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age ≤ 40 years require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years but the radiation risk creates concern. There is a fair number of conditions for which AUC are not available. Suggested solutions include development of CT scanners with lesser radiation dose and further development of appropriateness criteria.