Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of mobile vaccination units on COVID-19 vaccine uptake of the first dose, the percentage of vaccinated people among the total eligible population. We further investigate whether such an effect differed by deprivation, ethnicity and age.DesignSynthetic control analysis.SettingThe population registered with general practices (GPs) in nine local authority areas in Cheshire and Merseyside in Northwest England, UK.InterventionMobile vaccination units that visited 37 sites on 54 occasions between 12 April 2021 and 28 June 2021. We defined intervention neighbourhoods as having their population weighted centroid located within 1 km of mobile vaccination sites (338 006 individuals). A weighted combination of neighbourhoods that had not received the intervention (1 495 582 individuals) was used to construct a synthetic control group.OutcomeThe weekly number of first-dose vaccines received among people aged 18 years and over as a proportion of the population.ResultsThe introduction of a mobile vaccination unit into a neighbourhood increased the number of first vaccinations conducted in the neighbourhood by 25% (95% CI 21% to 28%) within 3 weeks after the first visit to a neighbourhood, compared with the synthetic control group. Interaction analyses showed smaller or no effect among older age groups, Asian and black ethnic groups, and the most socioeconomically deprived populations.ConclusionsMobile vaccination units are effective interventions for increasing vaccination uptake, at least in the short term. While mobile units can be geographically targeted to reduce inequalities, we found evidence that they may increase inequalities in vaccine uptake within targeted areas, as the intervention was less effective among groups that tended to have lower vaccination uptake. Mobile vaccination units should be used in combination with activities to maximise outreach with black and Asian communities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

WREXHAM'S plight is symptomatic of the poor management...

IntroductionAcute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of oral olanzapine is more effective than a dose of oral diazepam at successfully sedating young people with ASBD.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 years and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of oral olanzapine and oral diazepam. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/66478/RCHM-2020). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001236886.

IntroductionAcute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of intramuscular olanzapine is more effective than intramuscular droperidol at successfully sedating young people with ASBD requiring intramuscular sedation.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular droperidol. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001238864.

PurposeEvaluate the safety and efficacy of adrenal microwave ablation performed with continuous intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring (IABPM) and without alpha-adrenergic blockade (AAB) as pretreatment.Material and MethodsA single-center, retrospective review of all percutaneous adrenal microwave ablation performed between 2011 and 2018. Microwave ablation was completed on 11 patients, with a total of 15 adrenal tumors with a mean size of 3.3 cm (1.4–6.9 cm) treated metastatic RCC, HCC, esophageal carcinoma, adrenal adenoma. Cases were performed without prior AAB, but with continuous IABPM and rapid intervention using short-acting antihypertensive medications.ResultsThere were no post-procedural episodes of hypertension, no neurological or cardiovascular complications, and no SIR moderate or worse adverse event complications. Mean intraprocedural maximum systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 211 mmHg (range: 132–288), with an average increase in SBP of 100 mmHg (range: 23–180). A hypertensive crisis (SBP ≥ 180 and/or DBP ≥ 120) occurred in 9 of the 15 procedures (60%) with a mean length of 3.0 min (range: 1–12). The technical success rate was 100% (15/15 procedures). The mean follow-up time was 2.4 years (range: 0.9–7.7 years), with primary and secondary efficacy rates of 77% and 87%, respectively, and an overall survival of 82%.ConclusionIn this single-center retrospective study, microwave ablation of adrenal tumors without AAB was safe and effective when performed with continuous arterial line monitoring of vital signs and the use of short-acting, rapid-onset antihypertensive medications.Level of EvidenceLevel 4, Case Series.

Background This study aimed to determine epidemiology and outcome for patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) with shortness of breath who were transported by ambulance. Methods This was a planned sub-study of a prospective, interrupted time series cohort study conducted at three time points in 2014 and which included consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED with dyspnoea as a main symptom. For this sub-study, additional inclusion criteria were presentation to an ED in Australia or New Zealand and transport by ambulance. The primary outcomes of interest are the epidemiology and outcome of these patients. Analysis was by descriptive statistics and comparisons of proportions. Results One thousand seven patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 74 years (IQR 61-68) and 46.1 % were male. There was a high rate of co-morbidity and chronic medication use. The most common ED diagnoses were lower respiratory tract infection (including pneumonia, 22.7 %), cardiac failure (20.5%) and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (19.7 %). ED disposition was hospital admission (including ICU) for 76.4 %, ICU admission for 5.6 % and death in ED in 0.9 %. Overall in-hospital mortality among admitted patients was 6.5 %. Discussion Patients transported by ambulance with shortness of breath make up a significant proportion of ambulance caseload and have high comorbidity and high hospital admission rate. In this study, >60 % were accounted for by patients with heart failure, lower respiratory tract infection or COPD, but there were a wide range of diagnoses. This has implications for service planning, models of care and paramedic training. Conclusion This study shows that patients transported to hospital by ambulance with shortness of breath are a complex and seriously ill group with a broad range of diagnoses. Understanding the characteristics of these patients, the range of diagnoses and their outcome can help inform training and planning of services.