Implementation of an ICU bundle along with staff education and case conferences is effective for improving delirium screening, detection, and treatment and is associated with decreased delirium prevalence.

OBJECTIVE To describe the use of pharmacologic treatment in critically ill children treated according to a delirium protocol and compare those treated with antipsychotics to those treated non-pharmacologically. METHODS The study included a retrospective matched cohort describing patients who were pharmacologically treated for delirium compared to those with delirium but not treated in a PICU from December 2013 to September 2015, using a delirium management protocol. Patients were matched by age, sex, diagnosis, mechanical ventilation (MV), and presence of delirium. RESULTS Of 1875 patients screened, 188 (10.03%) were positive for delirium. Of those, 15 patients (8%) were treated with an antipsychotic for delirium. Patients with delirium treated with antipsychotics were younger, had more delirium days (6 vs. 3, p=0.022), longer MV days (14 vs. 7, p=0.017), and longer PICU length of stay (34 vs. 16 days, p=0.029) than in the untreated group. Haloperidol, risperidone, and quetiapine were used in 9, 6, and 2 patients, respectively. Two patients were treated with multiple antipsychotics. Antipsychotic treatment was initiated on day 2 of delirium for 8 of 15 patients (53.3%). Ten patients in the treatment group had improved delirium scores by day 2 of treatment. No significant differences in sedation exposure between groups. No significant adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS No significant adverse events seen in this small cohort of critically ill pediatric patients with delirium treated with antipsychotic therapy. Patients with early-onset delirium refractory to non-pharmacologic treatment may have a more effective response to antipsychotic therapy than patients with late-onset refractory delirium.

Introduction Chemsex in a European context is the use of any of the following drugs to facilitate sex: crystal methamphetamine, mephedrone and gamma‐hydroxybutyrate (GHB)/gamma‐butyrolactone (GBL) and, to a lesser extent, cocaine and ketamine. This study describes the prevalence of self‐reported recreational drug use and chemsex in HIV‐positive men who have sex with men (MSM) accessing HIV services in four countries. It also examines the problematic impacts and harms of chemsex and access to chemsex‐related services. Methods This is a cross‐sectional multi‐centre questionnaire study of HIV‐positive MSM accessing nine HIV services in the UK, Spain, Greece and Italy. Results In all, 1589 HIV‐positive MSM attending HIV services in four countries completed the questionnaire. The median age of participants was 38 years (interquartile range: 32–46 years) and 1525 (96.0%) were taking antiretroviral therapy (ART). In the previous 12 months, 709 (44.6%) had used recreational drugs, 382 (24.0%) reported chemsex and 104 (6.5%) reported injection of chemsex‐associated drugs (‘slamsex’). Of the 382 engaging in chemsex, 155 (40.6%) reported unwanted side effects as a result of chemsex and 81 (21.2%) as a result of withdrawal from chemsex. The reported negative impacts from chemsex were on work (25.1%, 96), friends/family (24.3%, 93) and relationships (28.3%, 108). Fifty‐seven (14.9%) accessed chemsex‐related services in the past year, 38 of whom (67%) felt the service met their needs. Discussion A quarter of participants self‐reported chemsex in the past 12 months. There were high rates of harms from chemsex across all countries, including negative impacts on work, friends/family and relationships. Although a minority of those engaging in chemsex accessed support, most found this useful.

There are many compelling reasons to use a shared, public testbed such as GENI, Emulab, or PlanetLab to conduct experiments in computer science and networking. These testbeds support creating experiments with a large and diverse set of resources. Moreover these testbeds are constructed to inherently support the repeatability of experiments as required for scientifically sound research. Finally, the artifacts needed for a researcher to repeat their own experiment can be shared so that others can readily repeat the experiment in the same environment. However using a shared, public testbed is different from conducting experiments on resources either owned by the experimenter or someone the experimenter knows. Experiments on shared, public testbeds are more likely to use large topologies, use scarce resources, and need to be tolerant to outages and maintenances in the testbed. In addition, experimenters may not have access to low-level debugging information. This paper describes a methodology for new experimenters to write and deploy repeatable and sharable experiments which deal with these challenges by: having a clear plan; automating the execution and analysis of an experiment by following best practices from software engineering and system administration; and building scalable experiments. In addition, the paper describes a case study run on the GENI testbed which illustrates the methodology described.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract