Enzymatic substrate analysis is an attractive means of analysis in clinical chemistry because of its sensitivity and specificity. The GeMSAEC Fast Analyzer, in conjunction with a small computer, provides a means of performing routine enzymatic substrate analysis and offers the following advantages: (a) selectivity of approaches to enzymatic analysis, i.e., end-point or kinetic; (b) essentially parallel analyses of multiple samples, yielding a unique method for performing kinetic fixed-time analysis; (c) on-line data reduction, resulting in rapid calculation and output of results and the minimization of data handling errors; and (d) a small reagent volume per test (400 µl), which reduces the cost of analysis. The analysis of substrate with enzymatic end-point and kinetic procedures is examined by use of a computer-interfaced Fast Analyzer. Computer programs were written to facilitate this study. Glucose (hexokinase/GPD), urea (urease/GMD), and uric acid (uricase) have been used as examples in evaluating both end-point and kinetic analyses. The advantages and limitations of each type of analysis are presented, with the emphasis being placed on enzymatic substrate analysis and means by which the computer-interfaced Fast Analyzer can facilitate both end-point and kinetic analyses.

No abstract

Ambulance patients are seriously ill, but sepsis is often not documented by ambulance staff. Nondocumentation is associated with high mortality and could be resolved by assessing vital signs, particularly the temperature.

IntroductionIt is widely accepted that transportation of critically ill patients is high risk. Unfortunately, however, there are currently no evidence-based criteria with which to determine the quality of various interhospital transport systems and their impact on the outcomes for patients. We aim to rectify this by assessing 2 scores which were developed in our hospital in a prospective, observational study. Primarily, we will be examining the Quality of interhospital critical care transportation in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine (QUIT EMR) score, which focuses on the quality of the transport system, and secondarily the SEMROS (Simplified EMR outcome score) which detects changes in the patient's clinical condition in the 24 hours following their transportation.Methods and analysisA web-based application will be used to document around 150 pretransport, intratransport and post-transport items of each patient case.To be included, patients must be at least 18-years of age and should have been supervised by a physician during an interhospital transport which was started in the study region.The quality of the QUIT EMR score will be assessed by comparing 3 predefined levels of transport facilities: the high, medium and low standards. Subsequently, SEMROS will be used to determine the effect of transport quality on the morbidity 24 hours after transportation.It is estimated that there will be roughly 3000 appropriate cases suitable for inclusion in this study per year. Cases shall be collected from 1 April 2015 until 31 December 2017.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the Ethics committees of the university hospitals of Maastricht (Netherlands) and Aachen (Germany). The study results will be published in a peer reviewed journal. Results of this study will determine if a prospective randomised trial involving patients of various categories being randomly assigned to different levels of transportation system shall be conducted.Trial registration numberNTR4937.

ObjectivesInterhospital transports of critically ill patients are high-risk medical interventions. Well-established parameters to quantify the quality of transports are currently lacking. We aimed to develop and cross-validate a score for interhospital transports.SettingAn expert panel developed a score for interhospital transport by a Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU), the QUality of Interhospital Transportation in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine (QUIT-EMR) score. The QUIT-EMR score is an overall sum score that includes component scores of monitoring and intervention variables of the neurological (proxy for airway patency), respiratory and circulatory organ systems, ranging from −12 to +12. A score of 0 or higher defines an adequate transport. The QUIT-EMR score was tested to help to quantify the quality of transport.ParticipantsOne hundred adult patients were randomly included and the transport charts were independently reviewed and classified as adequate or inadequate by four transport experts (ie, anaesthetists/intensivists).Outcome measuresSubsequently, the level of agreement between the QUIT-EMR score and expert classification was calculated using Gwet’s AC1.ResultsFrom April 2012 to May 2014, a total of 100 MICU transports were studied. The median (IQR) QUIT-EMR score was 1 (0–2). Experts classified six transports as inadequate. The percentage agreement between the QUIT-EMR score and experts’ classification for adequate/inadequate transport ranged from 84% to 92% (Gwet’s AC10.81–0.91). The interobserver agreement between experts was 87% to 94% (Gwet’s AC10.89–0.98).ConclusionThe QUIT-EMR score is a novel validated tool to score MICU transportation adequacy in future studies contributing to quality control and improvement.Trial registration numberNTR 4937.