There has been substantial growth over the last decade in the number of UK neonatal units that provide some premedication for non-emergent newborn intubation, increasing from 37% in 1998 to 93% in 2007. This includes a concomitant increase in the use of paralytic drugs from 22% to 78%. However, the variety of drugs used merits further research.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the 2-week wait rule on patient waiting times for the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data reporting the waiting times from diagnosis to treatment for 100 consecutive patients newly diagnosed with bladder cancer immediately before and after the implementation of the 2-week wait rule were compared. The data were collected both prospectively and retrospectively from cancer multidisciplinary team meeting files and patient records. Various steps of the patient pathway were analysed including waiting times from referral to consultation as well as time to investigation and first treatment. Data were also analysed based upon tumour stage/grade and whether referrals were made on an urgent or routine basis. RESULTS One hundred newly diagnosed patients with bladder cancer in each group covered a period of 4–5 years (1997–2001 and 2001–2006). Following the introduction of the 2-week wait rule, there was a 47.6% reduction in the time from referral to first consultation with a specialist (42 days vs 22 days; P < 0.001). The time between first investigation and treatment has not reduced significantly. We also found that, despite the introduction of the 2-week wait rule, only 42% of the patients were diagnosed with bladder cancer using this pathway. Patients referred as ‘routine’ waited longer to be seen in hospital although there was no significant delay in receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of the 2-week wait rule has significantly reduced the time patients with bladder cancer wait for their first consultation with a specialist. However, there is no significant change in the time between first consultation and treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic indomethacin reduces severe intraventricular hemorrhage but may increase spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. Early feedings improve nutritional outcomes but may increase the risk of SIP. Despite their benefits, use of these therapies varies largely by physician preferences in part because of the concern for SIP. METHODS: This was a cohort study of 15 751 ELBW infants in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network from 1999 to 2010 who survived beyond 12 hours after birth. The risk of SIP was compared between groups of infants with and without exposure to prophylactic indomethacin and early feeding in unadjusted analyses and in analyses adjusted for center and for risks of SIP. RESULTS: Among infants exposed to prophylactic indomethacin, the risk of SIP did not differ between the indomethacin/early-feeding group compared with the indomethacin/no-early-feeding group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–1.11). The risk of SIP was lower in the indomethacin/early-feeding group compared with the no indomethacin/no-early-feeding group (adjusted RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37–0.90, P = .0159). Among infants not exposed to indomethacin, early feeding was associated with a lower risk of SIP compared with the no early feeding group (adjusted RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36–0.777, P = .0011). CONCLUSIONS: The combined or individual use of prophylactic indomethacin and early feeding was not associated with an increased risk of SIP in ELBW infants.

No abstract