Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: In many hospitals a chest X-ray is performed routinely at each patient’s admission. There are scant data regarding its usefulness in contemporary patient populations, which are characterized by patients’ increasing age, severity of illness, and different comorbidities.

Methods: We studied consecutive patients admitted during a 2 month period to a single department of medicine, where hospital policy mandates performing a CXR[1] on admission or soon after. Two senior clinicians who were not involved in the care of these patients assessed the discharge summaries for a clinical indication to perform CXR on admission, as well as its contribution to patient management (major positive, major negative, minor positive, or no contribution). Logistic regression analysis was performed with the SPSS 12 software program.

Results: The study population comprised 675 patients whose mean age was 64.5 ± 17.2 years. Their presenting complaints included chest pain (18%), dyspnea (12%), weakness (10.5%), fever (9%), abdominal pain (8%) and neurologic complaints (7.5%). Physical examination of the chest was normal in 585 (87%) of the cases and abnormal in 87 (13%). Examination of the heart was normal in 518 (77%) and abnormal in 129 (19%). In 19.6% (130 cases) CXR was not performed. Of the 545 CXRs done, 260 (48%) were normal. In only 128 (23.5%) did the admission CXR make a major positive contribution to diagnosis or treatment. In 61 (11.2%) it provided a minor positive contribution and in 153 (28.1%) a major negative contribution. In 184 patients (33.8%) the CXR did not affect either diagnosis or management. It made a major positive contribution to management in patients for whom there was an indication for performing the X-ray (odds ratio 10.3, P < 0.0005) and in those with a relevant finding on physical examination (OR[2] 1.63, P = 0.110). For a major negative contribution of the CXR to management (i.e., ruling out clinically important possibilities), the clinical indication was also very important (OR 72.9, P < 0.005). When patients with either a clinical indication for performing a CXR or an abnormal chest examination were excluded, 329 patients remained (60% of the 545 who had a CXR) in only 12 of them (3.6%) did the routine admission CXR contribute to patient management.

Conclusions: A routine admission CXR has a significant impact on patient management only in those patients in whom there are relevant findings on physical examination or a clear clinical indication for performing the test. There is no need to routinely order CXR on admission to hospital.

[1] CXR = chest X-ray

[2] OR = odds ratio

Background: Osler taught that splenic infarction presents with left upper abdominal quadrant pain, tenderness and swelling accompanied by a peritoneal friction rub. Splenic infarction is classically associated with bacterial endocarditis and sickle cell disease.

Objectives: To describe the contemporary experience of splenic infarction.

Methods: We conducted a chart review of inpatients diagnosed with splenic infarction in a Jerusalem hospital between 1990 and 2003.

Results: We identified 26 cases with a mean age of 52 years. Common causes were hematologic malignancy (six cases) and intracardiac thrombus (five cases). Only three cases were associated with bacterial endocarditis. In 21 cases the splenic infarction brought a previously undiagnosed underlying disease to attention. Only half the subjects complained of localized left-sided abdominal pain, 36% had left-sided abdominal tenderness 31% had no signs or symptoms localized to the splenic area, 36% had fever, 56% had leukocytosis and 71% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels. One splenectomy was performed and all patients survived to discharge. A post hoc analysis demonstrated that single infarcts were more likely to be associated with fever (20% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) and leukocytosis (75% vs. 33%, p = 0.06)

Conclusions: The clinical presentation of splenic infarction in the modern era differs greatly from the classical teaching, regarding etiology, signs and symptoms. In patients with unexplained splenic infarction, investigation frequently uncovers a new underlying diagnosis. 

Background: While family presence during resuscination has been researched extensively in the international and especially American medical literature, in Israel this subject has rarely been researched. Because such policies have become common practice in many countries, it is important to investigate the attitudes of health care staff in Israeli emergency departments to better understand the potential implication of adopting such policies.

Objectives: To examine the attitudes of the physicians and nurses in the ED of Soroka Medical Center to FPDR[1]. 

Methods: The methods we used were both qualitative (partly structured open interviews of 10 ED staff members from various medical professions) and quantitative (an anonymous questionnaire that collected sociodemographic, professional, and attitude data).

Results: The qualitative and quantitative results showed that most staff members opposed FPDR. The main reasons for objecting to FPDR were concern about family criticism, the added pressure that would be put on the staff members, fear of lawsuits, fear of hurting the feelings of the families, and the danger of losing one’s objectivity while treating patients. Physicians objected more strongly to FPDR than did nurses.  

Conclusions: More research is needed on FPDR in Israel, including an examination of its medical, ethical, legal and logistic aspects. In addition to the views of the medical staff, the attitudes of patients and their families should also be examined.

[1] FPDR = family presence during resuscitation

 

Background: Due to increasing antimicrobial resistance there has been renewed interest in old drugs that have fallen into disuse because of toxic side effects.

Objectives: To evaluate the susceptibility profile, in our hospital, of Enterobacteriaceae and Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates to chloramphenicol and to compare them with the susceptibility to amoxicillin-clavulanate.

Methods: All isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and S. pneumoniae recovered in our lab during a one year period were tested for susceptibility to chloramphenicol and amoxicillin-clavulanate or penicillin, respectively.

Results: Of 413 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 182 (44.1%) were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate, but only 76 (18.4%) were resistant to chloramphenicol. Of 189 isolates of S. pneumoniae, 4 (2.1%) were highly resistant to penicillin and 73 (38.8%) were partially resistant, while only 2 (1.1%) were resistant to chloramphenicol. None of the 24 S. pneumoniae isolates causing invasive diseases exhibited resistance to chloramphenicol.

Conclusions: In an era of increasing resistance to many antibiotic preparations, chloramphenicol might have a role in the treatment of intraabdominal and respiratory tract infections.