SummaryBackgroundArthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.MethodsWe did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.FindingsBetween Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).InterpretationSurgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treat...

Compared with soap and water, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections by 44.5% in surgical ICU patients.

Background Sepsis is a leading cause of death, but evidence suggests that early recognition and prompt intervention can save lives. In 2005 Houston Methodist Hospital prioritized sepsis detection and management in its ICU. In late 2007, because of marginal effects on sepsis death rates, the focus shifted to designing a program that would be readily used by nurses and ensure early recognition of patients showing signs suspicious for sepsis, as well as the institution of prompt, evidence-based interventions to diagnose and treat it. Methods The intervention had four components: organizational commitment and data-based leadership; development and integration of an early sepsis screening tool into the electronic health record; creation of screening and response protocols; and education and training of nurses. Twice-daily screening of patients on targeted units was conducted by bedside nurses; nurse practitioners initiated definitive treatment as indicated. Evaluation focused on extent of implementation, trends in inpatient mortality, and, for Medicare beneficiaries, a before-after (2008–2011) comparison of outcomes and costs. A federal grant in 2012 enabled expansion of the program. Results By year 3 (2011) 33% of inpatients were screened (56,190 screens in 9,718 unique patients), up from 10% in year 1 (2009). Inpatient sepsis-associated death rates decreased from 29.7% in the preimplementation period (2006–2008) to 21.1% after implementation (2009–2014). Death rates and hospital costs for Medicare beneficiaries decreased from preimplementation levels without a compensatory increase in discharges to postacute care. Conclusion This program has been associated with lower inpatient death rates and costs. Further testing of the robustness and exportability of the program is under way.

Objective:To establish a baseline for the incidence of sepsis by severity and presence on admission in acute care hospital settings before implementation of a broad sepsis screening and response initiative.Methods:A retrospective cohort study using hospital discharge abstracts of 5672 patients, aged 18 years and above, with sepsis-associated stays between February 2012 and January 2013 at an academic medical center and 5 community hospitals in Texas.Results:Sepsis was present on admission in almost 85% of cases and acquired in-hospital in the remainder. The overall inpatient death rate was 17.2%, but was higher in hospital-acquired sepsis (38.6%, medical; 29.2%, surgical) and Stages 2 (17.6%) and 3 (36.4%) compared with Stage 1 (5.9%). Patients treated at the academic medical center had a higher death rate (22.5% vs. 15.1%, P<0.001) and were more costly ($68,050±184,541 vs. $19,498±31,506, P<0.001) versus community hospitals.Conclusions:Greater emphasis is needed on public awareness of sepsis and the detection of sepsis in the prehospitalization and early hospitalization period. Hospital characteristics and case mix should be accounted for in cross-hospital comparisons of sepsis outcomes and costs.