Newcastle General Hospital (NGH) was for many years the main hospital for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and is managed by Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The Accident and Emergency Department and Intensive Care closed on 16 November 2010. A walk-in centre for minor ailments and injuries remained on the site.
BACKGROUND:It is unknown whether decompressive craniectomy improves clinical outcome for people with spontaneous severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The SWITCH trial aimed to assess whether decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment in these patients improves outcome at 6 months compared to best medical treatment alone. METHODS:In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, assessor-blinded trial conducted in 42 stroke centres in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, adults (18-75 years) with a severe intracerebral haemorrhage involving the basal ganglia or thalamus were randomly assigned to receive either decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment or best medical treatment alone. The primary outcome was a score of 5-6 on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 180 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02258919, and is completed. FINDINGS:SWITCH had to be stopped early due to lack of funding. Between Oct 6, 2014, and April 4, 2023, 201 individuals were randomly assigned and 197 gave delayed informed consent (96 decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment, 101 best medical treatment). 63 (32%) were women and 134 (68%) men, the median age was 61 years (IQR 51-68), and the median haematoma volume 57 mL (IQR 44-74). 42 (44%) of 95 participants assigned to decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 55 (58%) assigned to best medical treatment alone had an mRS of 5-6 at 180 days (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·59 to 1·01, adjusted risk difference [aRD] -13%, 95% CI -26 to 0, p=0·057). In the per-protocol analysis, 36 (47%) of 77 participants in the decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment group and 44 (60%) of 73 in the best medical treatment alone group had an mRS of 5-6 (aRR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58 to 1·00, aRD -15%, 95% CI -28 to 0). Severe adverse events occurred in 42 (41%) of 103 participants receiving decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 41 (44%) of 94 receiving best medical treatment. INTERPRETATION:SWITCH provides weak evidence that decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment might be superior to best medical treatment alone in people with severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The results do not apply to intracerebral haemorrhage in other locations, and survival is associated with severe disability in both groups. FUNDING:Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Inselspital Stiftung, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
Background The recent introduction of major trauma networks throughout England in 2012 has changed how patients with suspected traumatic brain injury (TBI) are managed at the scene of injury. Selecting certain head trauma patients with suspected TBI for bypass to a more distant specialist neurological centre (SNC) is the networks function but may delay resuscitation whilst expediting neurosurgical/critical care. This comparative effectiveness research study analysed the impact of this strategy on the risk adjusted survival rates of patients confirmed to have a TBI on brain CT scan. Method and results The study employed data from the Trauma Audit and Research Network. Adult patients with a TBI on CT scan were included if they presented between June 2015 to February 2016 to SNCs or non-specialist acute hospitals (NSAH) in the North of England (South Cumbria, Lancashire and the North East Region). Patients were identified as having bypassed a nearer NSAH emergency department (ED) to a SNC using google maps enabling exclusion of patients whose nearest ED was within a SNC. Their risk adjusted survival was compared to TBI patients who received primary treatment at a NSAH with subsequent secondary transfer to a SNC or who remained at the NSAH until discharge or death. A multivariate logistic regression model predicting survival after TBI (Ps14 n ) was utilised to adjust for variation in casemix between the cohorts. Conclusions 84 of 339 (25%) of TBI patients bypassed a nearer NSAH to a SNC, whilst 75% received primary treatment at an NSAH (n=255). There was no significant difference in the standardised excess survival rate between the two cohorts; shown as +2.55% for bypass (−5.09% to +10.20%) versus −1.49% for non-bypass (−5.34% to +2.36%). No significant survival benefit was identified for TBI patients who bypassed the nearest ED compared to those receiving treatment at the nearest NSAH.
Autistic people are more likely to: be diagnosed with a range of physical health conditions (i.e. cardio-vascular disease); experience premature mortality (for most disease categories); and experience barriers to effectively accessing healthcare. This systematic review sought to identify studies that report on barriers and facilitators to physical healthcare access for autistic people. A total of 3111 records were screened and six studies were included: two quantitative, two qualitative, and two mixed-methodology studies. Patient-provider communication, sensory sensitivities, and executive functioning/planning issues emerged as important barriers to healthcare. Recommendations for clinicians and those planning services are discussed.
The development of B-mode imaging, including features such as contact scanning, spatial compounding and a limited form of grey scale display, is reviewed up to the 1960s, in relation to the work of Brown and Donald in Glasgow.
Background Although clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30-40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. Methods We did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANS S total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual. Findings From Jan 1,2013, to May 31,2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANS S total at 21 months, mean difference -0.89, 95% CI -3.32 to 1.55; p=0.48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANS S total at 9 months, mean difference -2.40, -4.79 to -0.02; p=0.049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p=0.58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event. Interpretation At 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some.
