An unusual presentation of developmental anomalies of the cardiovascular system including tetralogy of fallot, double outlet right ventricle, patent foramen ovale and persistent right aortic arch in a Friesian calf.

BACKGROUND: Congenital heart diseases are occasionally encountered in the bovine species. Ventricular septal defects (VSD) and atrial septal defects (ASD) are reported to be the most common; however, a vast collection have been reported [1, 2]. Congenital heart diseases is thought to represent less than 3% of all congenital abnormalities in calves [3]. Various cardiac anomalies arise due to defective embryologic development such as defects of the septae or the cardiac chambers [2]. The exact aetiology of these congenial heart anomalies remains to be fully elucidated [4]. VSDs appear to be the most common congenital cardiac anomaly in calves. Other diseases can be subdivided into cyanotic (e.g. ASD or patent ductus arteriosus) and non-cyanotic (e.g. tetralogy of fallot or eisenmengers complex) [5, 6]. An exceptional presentation of an array of congenital anomalies was identified in a Friesian heifer calf. To the authors' knowledge this concurrent collection of congenital abnormalities has never been reported in this species. CASE PRESENTATION: A 3-day old Friesian heifer presented with a history since birth of regurgitation post feeding. The main finding on clinical examination was tachypnoea with a holosystolic murmur. Echocardiography identified a VSD, patent foramen ovale (PFO) (both with left to right blood flow) and tricuspid insufficiency. The calf was subsequently euthanised and underwent gross post-mortem examination. A persistent right aortic arch (PRAA) was identified. The cardiac anomalies identified on the echocardiogram were confirmed along with additional abnormalities; double outlet right ventricle (DORV), partial transposition of the great vessels, pulmonic stenosis, hypoplasia of the right branch of the pulmonary artery and right ventricular hypertrophy. The final diagnosis was Tetralogy of Fallot with DORV, PFO and PRAA. The lungs appeared oedematous and congested due to cardiac malfunction and cranioventral aspiration pneumonia. Free serous fluid was identified in the thoracic cavity. Unilateral renal agenesis of the left kidney was an incidental finding but is of note due to its coexistence with the cardiac abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: This is an unusual case as it features numerous congenital abnormalities that appeared to negate each other allowing capability with life. To the authors' knowledge, this collection of concurrent cardiac anomalies has not been previously reported in bovines.

Cross-sectional study of prescribing errors in patients admitted to nine hospitals across North West England.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence, type and severity of prescribing errors observed between grades of prescriber, ward area, admission or discharge and type of medication prescribed. DESIGN: Ward-based clinical pharmacists prospectively documented prescribing errors at the point of clinically checking admission or discharge prescriptions. Error categories and severities were assigned at the point of data collection, and verified independently by the study team. SETTING: Prospective study of nine diverse National Health Service hospitals in North West England, including teaching hospitals, district hospitals and specialist services for paediatrics, women and mental health. RESULTS: Of 4238 prescriptions evaluated, one or more error was observed in 1857 (43.8%) prescriptions, with a total of 3011 errors observed. Of these, 1264 (41.9%) were minor, 1629 (54.1%) were significant, 109 (3.6%) were serious and 9 (0.30%) were potentially life threatening. The majority of errors considered to be potentially lethal (n=9) were dosing errors (n=8), mostly relating to overdose (n=7). The rate of error was not significantly different between newly qualified doctors compared with junior, middle grade or senior doctors. Multivariable analyses revealed the strongest predictor of error was the number of items on a prescription (risk of error increased 14% for each additional item). We observed a high rate of error from medication omission, particularly among patients admitted acutely into hospital. Electronic prescribing systems could potentially have prevented up to a quarter of (but not all) errors. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other studies, prescriber experience did not impact on overall error rate (although there were qualitative differences in error category). Given that multiple drug therapies are now the norm for many medical conditions, health systems should introduce and retain safeguards which detect and prevent error, in addition to continuing training and education, and migration to electronic prescribing systems.

Off-label prescribing during pregnancy in the UK: an analysis of 18,000 prescriptions in Liverpool Women's Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Large numbers of drugs are prescribed antenatally, many of which are off-label or unlicensed. An off-label medication is one which does have a market authorization, but for a different indication, dose, route or patient group than that for which it is prescribed. The purpose of this study was to determine how commonly these prescriptions are written at Liverpool Women's Hospital (LWH), a unit with 8000 deliveries per annum. METHODS: All inpatient prescriptions received from antenatal areas at LWH during a 3-month period were analysed. The drugs were divided into categories according to their licence, FDA class and degree of clinical risk. KEY FINDINGS: Some 17 694 prescriptions of 235 different drugs were prescribed during this period. Thirty-seven (16%) drugs and 4445 (25%) medications prescribed were licensed for use in pregnancy; 57 (24%) drugs and 3363 (19%) of the total prescriptions were off-label but considered safe by the manufacturers (e.g. erythromycin, prochlorperazine and clotrimazole); 138 (58%) drugs and 9722 (55%) prescriptions were cautioned or contraindicated by the manufacturer in pregnancy (e.g. cefalexin, magnesium sulphate and nifedipine). After further investigation into the safety of the off-label medications from the FDA safety profile and with the opinion of a multidisciplinary team, we were able to draw up a list of high-risk off-label medicines. This consisted of 38 drugs (16% of total) and 1735 (10%) of the total prescriptions (e.g. lisinopril, diazepam and morphine). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of prescriptions being used in an off-label manner at LWH are high risk. Prescribers need to be aware of the risks associated with these drugs and the possible legal consequences of prescribing and administering them.