Background While several studies have assessed knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of the public, physicians and medical students in a number of EU/EEA countries with respect to antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance, there is a paucity of literature for other healthcare workers. This survey aimed to fill this gap. Methods A 43-item online questionnaire was developed, validated and pilot-tested through a modified Delphi consensus process involving 87 Project Advisory Group (PAG) members, including national representatives and members of European health professional groups. The survey was distributed by the PAG and via social media to healthcare workers in 30 EU/EEA countries. Results Respondents (n = 18,365) from 30 EU/EEA countries participated. Knowledge of antibiotics and antibiotic use was higher (97%) than knowledge of development and spread of antibiotic resistance (75%). Sixty percent of respondents stated they had received information on avoiding unnecessary prescribing, administering or dispensing of antibiotics. Among respondents who prescribed, administered or dispensed antibiotics, 55% had provided advice on prudent antibiotic use or management of infections to patients, but only 17% had given resources (leaflets or pamphlets). For community and hospital prescribers, fear of patient deterioration or complications was the most frequent reason (43%) for prescribing antibiotics that were considered unnecessary. Community prescribers were almost twice as likely as hospital prescribers to prescribe antibiotics due to time constraints or to maintain patient relationships. Conclusion It is important to move from raising awareness about prudent antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance among healthcare workers to designing antimicrobial stewardship interventions aimed at changing relevant behaviours.

PCS with propofol is superior to midazolam and comparable to ACS. PCS resulted in a rapid recovery, fewer respiratory events, and was almost as effective as ACS in ensuring a successful examination.

BackgroundWidespread use of patient‐controlled sedation (PCS) demands simplicity and a predictable outcome. We evaluated patients’ safety and ease of use of PCS for gynaecological outpatient procedures.MethodsIn a prospective double‐blind study, 165 patients were randomized to use propofol or propofol with alfentanil as PCS combined with local anaesthetic for pain control. Data on cardiopulmonary function, consciousness, and need for interventions were collected at baseline and every fifth minute. The surgeons’ evaluation of the ease and the duration of the procedure were recorded.ResultsOne hundred and fifty‐five patients used PCS for the entire procedure, 76 patients propofol, and 79 patients propofol/alfentanil. Fifteen procedures in the propofol group were limited or could not be done, compared with four in the propofol/alfentanil group (P = 0.02). The duration of surgery was not affected. The addition of alfentanil affected respiratory function compared with the propofol group: five patients compared with none were manually ventilated (P = 0.03), and two thirds, compared with a quarter, were given supplementary oxygen as their saturation decreased below 90% (P < 0.001). Overall cardiovascular stability was maintained. The propofol group had deeper conscious sedation as measured by the bispectral index (P = 0.03), but all patients could be roused. In the propofol/alfentanil group, five patients became apnoeic and could not be roused.ConclusionsPCS using propofol alone supports patients’ safety, as the addition of alfentanil increased the need for specific interventions to maintain respiratory stability. However, alfentanil increases the feasibility of the procedure, as complementary doses of propofol were not required.

No abstract

Discography of porcine discs induces a pressure increase in adjacent discs. A similar pressure transfer during human clinical discography might elicit false-positive pain reactions.

Background: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is a documented method for endoscopic procedures considered to facilitate early recovery. Limited data have been reported, however, on its use during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). Methods: This study hypothesized that PCS with propofol during FB would facilitate early recovery, with similar bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction compared with nurse-controlled sedation (NCS) with midazolam. A total of 150 patients were randomized 1:1:1 into a control group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and NCS with midazolam), PCS-MS group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and PCS with propofol), and PCS-G group (premedication with glycopyrronium and PCS with propofol). Results: The procedures included transbronchial biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration, cryotherapy/biopsy, and/or multistation endobronchial ultrasound. FB duration values in median (range) were 40 (10 to 80), 39 (12 to 68), and 44 (10 to 82) minutes for the groups NCS, PCS-MS, and PCS-G, respectively. An overall 81% of the patients in the combined PCS groups were ready for discharge (modified Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System, score 10) 2 hours after bronchoscopy compared with 40% in the control group (P<0.0001). Between PCS groups, 96% of the PCS-G group patients were ready for discharge compared with 65% in the PCS-MS group (P=0.0002) at 2 hours. Bronchoscopists’ and patients’ satisfaction scores were high in all groups. Postdischarge quality scores showed no differences among the groups. Conclusion: PCS with propofol during FB is feasible, as it shortened recovery time without compromising procedure conditions for bronchoscopists or patients. A rapid postsedation stabilization of vital signs facilitates surveillance before the patient leaves the hospital.

1.

No abstract