Anaesthesia
-
We conducted two telephone surveys of all United Kingdom adult intensive care units in 2007/8 and 2010 to assess practice with regard to intensive insulin therapy for glycaemic control in critically ill patients, and to assess the change in practice following publications in 2008 and 2009 that challenged the evidence for this therapy. Of 243 units that had a written policy for intensive insulin therapy in 2007/8, 232 (96%) still had a policy in 2010. ⋯ Regional variations in practice were also seen. Across seven regions, the percentage of units where the glycaemic control policy had been updated since 2007/8 varied from nil to 78.9%.
-
Placebos play a vital role in clinical research, but their invasive use in the context of local anaesthetic blocks is controversial. We assessed whether recently published randomised controlled trials of local anaesthetic blocks risked harming control group patients in contravention of the Declaration of Helsinki. We developed the 'SHAM' (Serious Harm and Morbidity) scale to assess risk: grade 0 = no risk (no intervention); grade 1 = minimal risk (for example, skin allergy to dressing); grade 2 = minor risk (for example, subcutaneous haematoma, infection); grade 3 = moderate risk (with or without placebo injection) (for example, neuropraxia); and grade 4 = major risk (such as blindness, pneumothorax, or liver laceration). ⋯ A high level of agreement (78%, κ = 0.80, p < 0.001) for SHAM grades 0-4 increased to 100% following discussion between assessors. More than half of the randomised controlled study designs subjected patients in control groups to risks of serious or irreversible harm. A debate on whether it is justifiable to expose control group patients to risks of serious harm is overdue.