• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Mon, 29.04.24

Search results


June 2018
Adi Guy MD, Corey Saperia, Mohammed S. Yassin MD and Howard Amital MD MHA
October 2015
Barak Raguan BSc, Efrat Wolfovitz MD and Efrat Gil MD

Background: Physical restraints are a common, albeit controversial, tool used in the acute care setting. 

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of physical restraint use in an acute care hospital. Secondary objectives were to determine whether physical restraints are used more commonly in night shifts, identify patient risk factors for physical restraint use, and establish if staff-to-patient ratio correlated with physical restraint use.

Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted over 3 months in 2013 in the medical, surgical and intensive care units in a mid-sized general hospital. All the physically restrained patients in each observation were added to the registry. At each observation one department was selected for comparison and all non-restrained patients were added to the registry.

Results: The study population comprised 2163 patients. Seventy-six were restrained and 205 were included as case-controls. The prevalence of physical restraint use was 3.51% (95%CI = 2.79–4.37%). Physical restraint use was more common in night shifts than day shifts: 4.40% vs. 2.56% (P = 0.03). Male gender, dependency, invasive ventilation, invasive tubes (nasogastric tube or urine catheter), and bedsores were all significantly correlated with restraint use. Staff-to-patient ratios were not significantly correlated with use of physical restraints.

Conclusions: Physical restraints are relatively common in acute care wards. The use of physical restraints seems to correlate with certain patient characteristics but not with staff-to-patient ratios, and seems more common at night. 

 

December 2007
I. Golan, M. Ligumsky and M. Brezis

Background: The frequency of performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in demented older people has increased in recent years. Several reports indicate flaws in the criteria for performing PEG[1] and in the decision-making process, raising concerns about the adequacy of the consent.

Objectives: To examine knowledge and attitudes of referring doctors and gastroenterologists, and to evaluate attitudes and feelings of family members concerning PEG insertion.

Methods: We conducted a survey of 72 doctors who referred 126 demented patients for PEG, as well as 126 family members and 34 gastroenterologists. Closed-ended questionnaires were designed for each study group, completed by the participants, and computer analyzed.

Results: Approximately 50% of family members expressed dissatisfaction with the decision-making process. Referring physicians reported that PEG insertion was often dictated by the need to transfer patients to a nursing home, with 50% admitting institutional pressure. Most of the referring physicians believed that PEG improved quality of life and longevity, whereas gastroenterologists did not expect an improved quality of life and thought that administrative demands should not intervene in the decision to insert PEG.

Conclusions: The decision-making process in the patient's families regarding PEG insertion for their demented relative is unsatisfactory, often takes place under pressure, and does not provide sufficient information about the procedure or its complications. Interpersonal communication between the patient's family and the medical team need to be improved and institutional demands should not play a major role in the medical decision to insert PEG. Gastroenterologists should take a more active role in the deliberations regarding PEG.






[1] PEG = percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy


October 2007
F. Sperber, U. Metser, A. Gat, A. Shalmon and N. Yaal-Hahoshen

Background: The imaging parameters that mandate further diagnostic workup in focal asymmetric breast densities are not clearly defined.

Objectives: To identify indications for further workup in FABD[1] by comparing mammographic and ultrasonographic findings with the pathology results of women with FABD.

Methods: Ninety-four women (97 FABD) were referred for core needle biopsy after incidental discovery of FABD on routine mammograms (n=83) or on diagnostic mammograms performed for palpable masses (n=11). Clinical data included patient’s age, use of hormone replacement therapy, family history of breast cancer, and the presence of a palpable mass. Mammograms and sonograms were evaluated for lesion size and location, associated calcifications, architectural distortion, and change from previous examinations when available. Two patient groups emerged according to the pathological findings and the data were compared.

Results: The average age, size and location of the lesions in the malignant (n=5) and benign (n=92) groups were similar. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) for the presence of a clinically palpable mass (60% vs. 9%, respectively), a cluster of calcifications (60% vs. 12%), associated architectural distortion (exclusively in the malignant group) and a solid mass on sonography (50% vs. 9%). The malignant group had a higher rate of family history of breast cancer and HRT[2] use.

Conclusions: FABD usually present a benign etiology and can safely be managed by follow‑up. The presence of an architectural distortion, a cluster of malignant‑appearing or indeterminate calcifications, a sonographic mass with features of possible malignancy, or a clinically palpable mass mandates tissue diagnosis.






[1] FABD = focal asymmetric breast densities



[2] HRT = hormone replacement therapy


March 2002
Zeev Rotstein, MD, MHA, Rachel Wilf-Miron, MD, MPH, Bruno Lavi BA, Daniel S. Seidman, MD, MMSc, Poriah Shahaf, MD, MBA, Amir Shahar, MD, MPH, Uri Gabay, MD, MPH and Shlomo Noy, MD, MBA

Background: The emergency department is one of the hospital’s busiest facilities and is frequently described as a bottleneck. Management by constraint is a managerial methodology that helps to focus on the most critical issues by identifying such bottlenecks. Based on this theory, the benefit of adding medical staff may depend on whether or not physician availability is the bottleneck in the system.

Objective: To formulate a dynamic statistical model to forecast the need for allocating additional medical staff to improve the efficacy of work in the emergency department, taking into account patient volume.

Methods: The daily number of non-trauma admissions to the general ED[1] was assessed for the period 1 January 1992 to 1 December 1995 using the hospital computerized database. The marginal benefit to shortening patient length of stay in the ED by adding a physician during the evening shift was examined for different patient volumes. Data were analyzed with the SAS software package using a Gross Linear Model.

Results: The addition of a physician to the ED staff from noon to midnight significantly shortened patient LOS[2]: an average decrease of 6.61 minutes for 80–119 admissions (P<0.001). However, for less than 80 or more than 120 admissions, adding a physician did not have a significant effect on LOS in the ED.

Conclusions: The dynamic model formulated in this study shows that patient volume determines the effectiveness of investing manpower in the ED. Identifying bottleneck critical factors, as suggested by the theory of constraints, may be useful for planning and coordinating emergency services that operate under stressful and unpredictable conditions. Consideration of patient volume may also provide ED managers with a logical basis for staffing and resource allocation.






[1] ED = emergency department



[2] LOS = length of stay


Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel