Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background Since June 2002, revised regulations in Germany have required "Emergency Medical Care" as an interdisciplinary subject, and state that emergency treatment should be of increasing importance within the curriculum. A survey of the current status of undergraduate medical education in emergency medical care establishes the basis for further committee work. Methods Using a standardized questionnaire, all medical faculties in Germany were asked to answer questions concerning the structure of their curriculum, representation of disciplines, instructors' qualifications, teaching and assessment methods, as well as evaluation procedures. Results Data from 35 of the 38 medical schools in Germany were analysed. In 32 of 35 medical faculties, the local Department of Anaesthesiology is responsible for the teaching of emergency medical care; in two faculties, emergency medicine is taught mainly by the Department of Surgery and in another by Internal Medicine. Lectures, seminars and practical training units are scheduled in varying composition at 97% of the locations. Simulation technology is integrated at 60% (n=21); problem-based learning at 29% (n=10), e-learning at 3% (n=1), and internship in ambulance service is mandatory at 11% (n=4). In terms of assessment methods, multiple-choice exams (15 to 70 questions) are favoured (89%, n=31), partially supplemented by open questions (31%, n=11). Some faculties also perform single practical tests (43%, n=15), objective structured clinical examination (OSCE; 29%, n=10) or oral examinations (17%, n=6). Conclusion Emergency Medical Care in undergraduate medical education in Germany has a practical orientation, but is very inconsistently structured. The innovative options of simulation technology or state-of-the-art assessment methods are not consistently utilized. Therefore, an exchange of experiences and concepts between faculties and disciplines should be promoted to guarantee a standard level of education in emergency medical care.
Apheresis therapies for NMOSD attacks : a retrospective study of 207 therapeutic interventions
(2018)
Objective: To analyze whether 1 of the 2 apheresis techniques, therapeutic plasma exchange (PE) or immunoadsorption (IA), is superior in treating neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) attacks and to identify predictive factors for complete remission (CR).
Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on the registry of the German Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group, a nationwide network established in 2008. It recruited patients with neuromyelitis optica diagnosed according to the 2006 Wingerchuk criteria or with aquaporin-4 (AQP4-ab)-antibody–seropositive NMOSD treated at 6 regional hospitals and 16 tertiary referral centers until March 2013. Besides descriptive data analysis of patient and attack characteristics, generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were applied to compare the effectiveness of the 2 apheresis techniques. A GEE model was generated to assess predictors of outcome.
Results: Two hundred and seven attacks in 105 patients (87% AQP4-ab-antibody seropositive) were treated with at least 1 apheresis therapy. Neither PE nor IA was proven superior in the therapy of NMOSD attacks. CR was only achieved with early apheresis therapy. Strong predictors for CR were the use of apheresis therapy as first-line therapy (OR 12.27, 95% CI: 1.04–144.91, p = 0.047), time from onset of attack to start of therapy in days (OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89–0.99, p = 0.014), the presence of AQP4-ab-antibodies (OR 33.34, 95% CI: 1.76–631.17, p = 0.019), and monofocal attack manifestation (OR 4.71, 95% CI: 1.03–21.62, p = 0.046).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest early use of an apheresis therapy in NMOSD attacks, particularly in AQP4-ab-seropositive patients. No superiority was shown for one of the 2 apheresis techniques.
Classification of evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with NMOSD, neither PE nor IA is superior in the treatment of attacks.