Internal and emergency medicine
-
Comparative Study
A comparison between the efficacy of lectures given by emergency and non-emergency physicians in an international emergency medicine educational intervention.
The Tuscan Emergency Medicine Initiative is an international collaboration designed to create a sustainable emergency medicine training and qualification process in Tuscany, Italy. Part of the program involves training all emergency physicians currently practicing in the region. This qualification process includes didactic lectures, clinical rotations and practical workshops for those with significant emergency department experience. Lectures in the didactic portion were given by both emergency medicine (EM) and non-EM faculty. We hypothesized that faculty who worked clinically in EM would give more effective lectures than non-EM faculty. ⋯ When teaching EM, evaluations of lectures in this training intervention were higher for lectures given by EM faculty than by non-EM faculty.
-
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent syndrome, deeply affecting the cardiovascular system as well as the lungs. We investigated the prognostic role of the QT interval and QT dispersion (QTD) in predicting all-cause, respiratory and cardiovascular mortality in COPD, and the relationship between these electrocardiographic parameters and pulmonary function in a prospective longitudinal study. ⋯ Maximal QT interval, QTD and QTcD are independent predictors of mortality. A significant incidence of cardiac sudden death was observed. These findings suggest the need for a global and multidisciplinary risk assessment in COPD patients. Intriguing relationships between the QTD and functional respiratory parameters were also observed.
-
We believe that clinical ethics consultation (CEC) has as its goal the delivery of healthcare in a manner consistent with the moral rules and the moral ideals. Towards this end, CEC pursues the instrumental ends of clarifying the limits of acceptable ethical disagreement and facilitating a choice among ethically acceptable alternatives. In pursuing these ends, healthcare ethics consultation (HEC) and CEC services confront three broad categories of questions: (1) questions of professional duty; (2) questions of law; and (3) questions of general morality. ⋯ We submit that this has implications for the organization and structure of consultation services and HEC and for the methodology and processes employed in CEC. Thus: (1) questions of professional duty should be addressed only by physician members (whom we would distinguish by employing the term "ethicians") of the HEC or CEC service. The only role for non-ethicians under these circumstances would be in helping to resolve disagreements between/among professionals; (2) questions of law, in contrast, should be addressed only by the attorney member(s) of the HEC or CEC service; (3) questions of general morality may be addressed by the entire membership of the HEC or CEC service.