Bacteraemia in emergency departments: effective antibiotic reassessment is associated with a better outcome.

Patients with bacteraemia constitute an useful population for an audit of antibiotic treatments. Empirical antibiotic therapy (EAT) and its reassessment must take into account clinical data and microbiological results. Our aim was to determine the impact of these sequential steps of the therapy on survival. This was a retrospective multicentre study which included patients admitted to emergency departments (ED) for whom blood cultures were positive over a 4-month period. Microbial results were compiled from the database of the laboratories. The relevant information was extracted from the computerized patient's chart. An efficient EAT was based on antibiotic susceptibility of the bacteria. An effective antibiotic reassessment (AR) was defined as any modification of the EAT. Unfavorable outcome was defined as death of the patient during in-hospital care. Three hospitals and two clinics took part in this study, 169 patients with bacteraemia being included. The diagnosis in ED was undetermined in 21 cases (12%), 35 patients (21%) required intensive care, and 23 died (14%). One hundred and thirty-six patients (80%) received an EAT, the latter being efficient in 107 cases (63%). An effective AR was performed in 116 cases (69%). In multivariate analysis, risks factors for death were: ongoing cancer AOR (adjusted odds ratio) 3.34, undetermined diagnosis in ED: AOR 9.34 and severe sepsis or shock: AOR 6.98. Effective AR was a protective factor: AOR 0.28 [0.09-0.81]. One third of bacteraemic patients in ED did not benefit from AR. Improvement of antimicrobial stewardship should be associated with a higher rate of survival.

The impact of testing accommodations on MCAT scores: descriptive results.

PURPOSE: Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) examinees with disabilities who receive accommodations receive flagged scores indicating nonstandard administration. This report compares MCAT examinees who received accommodations and their performances with standard examinees. METHOD: Aggregate history records of all 1994-2000 MCAT examinees were identified as flagged (2,401) or standard (297,880), then further sorted by race/ethnicity (broadly identified as underrepresented minority and non-URM, at the time of testing) and gender. Those with flagged scores were also classified by disability (LD = learning disability, ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, LD/ADHD = learning disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and Other = other disability) and type of accommodation. Mean MCAT scores were calculated for all groups. A group of 866 examinees took the MCAT first as a standard administration and subsequently with accommodations. In a separate analysis, their two sets of scores were compared. RESULTS: Less than 1% of examinees (2,401) had accommodations; of these, 55% were LD, 17% ADHD, 5% LD/ADHD, and 23% Other. Extended time was the most frequently provided accommodation. Mean flagged scores slightly exceeded mean standard scores on all MCAT sections. Examinees who retook the MCAT with accommodations after a standard administration increased their scores by six points, quadrupling the average gain Standard-Standard retest cohort from another study. CONCLUSION: The small but statistically significant different higher flagged scores may reflect either appropriate compensation or overly generous accommodations. Extended time had a positive impact on the scores of those who retested with this accommodation. The validity the flagged MCAT in predicting success in medical school is not known, and further investigation is underway.