Standardisierte Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin (CEUS-Akut)

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

The success of Australia’s ‘No Jab,No Pay’ policy at a local level; retrospective clinical audit of a single medical practice assessing incidence of catch-up vaccinations

Vaccination is a vital health care initiative to prevent individual and population infection. To increase vaccination rates the federal government implemented the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy, where eligibility for several government benefits required children to be fully vaccinated by removing ‘conscientious objections’ and expanding the age range of children whose families receive benefits. This study assesses the impact of this policy at a local area within a single medical practice community in NSW, Australia. A retrospective clinical audit was performed between 2012 and 2017 on a single general practice's vaccination records for children ≤19 years. Catch-up vaccinations were assessed based on age at vaccination. Incidence of catch-up vaccinations was assessed for each of four years before and two years after the implementation of the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy in January 2016, along with the age of children and vaccination(s) given. Catch-up vaccinations were assessed temporally either side of implementation of ‘No Jab, No Pay’. Comparing the average annual vaccination catch-up incidence rate of 6.2% pre-implementation (2012–2015), there was an increase to 9.2% in 2016 (p < .001) and 7.8% in 2017 (p = .027). Secondary outcome measurement of catch-up vaccination incidence rates before (2012–2015) and after (2016–2017) ‘No Jab, No Pay’ implementation showed statistically significant increases for children aged 8–11 years (3.2%–5.6%, p = .038), 12–15 years (7.5%–14.7%, p < .001) and 16–19 years (3.3%–10.2%, p < .001) along with a statistically significant reduction in children aged 1–3 years (11.4%–6.2%, p = .015). Also, catch-up rates for DTPa significantly increased after program implementation. This study demonstrates that the Australian federal government vaccination policy ‘No Jab, No Pay’ was coincident with an increase in catch-up vaccinations within a rural NSW community served by one medical practice, especially for older children.     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.