The experience of auditory implant recipients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: Factors associated with pain.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with cochlear implants (CI) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI) require magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following implantation. This study explores the patient experience of MRI, identifying factors associated with pain, and the effect of interventions designed to enhance comfort and safety. METHODS: A prospective observational case series from a tertiary referral unit. Tight head bandaging ± local anaesthetic injection (devices with non-MRI-compatible magnets) or observation alone (implants with MRI-compatible magnets) were employed for 1.5 T MRI of consecutive adult patients with CI or ABI without magnet removal. Pain was recorded via visual analogue scale (1 = no pain, 5 = extreme pain) at three time points; (1) baseline, (2) head bandage applied (3) during scanning. Patient age, device type, body area imaged and total scan time were recorded as variables, alongside adverse events. RESULTS: Data were collected for 227 MRI scans (34 patients with ABI, 32 with CI). In patients managed with bandaging, pain score after bandaging but prior to scanning (median 2.2) did not differ from pain during scanning (2.1), but both were significantly higher than baseline (1.4, both P ≤ 0.001). Scanning areas other than the head/cervical spine was associated with higher pain scores (P = 0.036). Pain during MRI differed between different manufacturers implants (P ≤ 0.001). Adverse events occurred in 8/227 scans (3.5%), none occurring with devices containing an MRI-compatible magnet. CONCLUSION: MRI scanning with auditory implant magnets in situ is safe and well tolerated by patients.

The survival time of chocolates on hospital wards: covert observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the consumption of chocolates in a hospital ward environment. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, covert observational study. SETTING: Four wards at three hospitals (where the authors worked) within the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Boxes of Quality Street (Nestlé) and Roses (Cadbury) on the ward and anyone eating these chocolates. INTERVENTION: Observers covertly placed two 350 g boxes of Quality Street and Roses chocolates on each ward (eight boxes were used in the study containing a total of 258 individual chocolates). These boxes were kept under continuous covert surveillance, with the time recorded when each chocolate was eaten. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Median survival time of a chocolate. RESULTS: 191 out of 258 (74%) chocolates were observed being eaten. The mean total observation period was 254 minutes (95% confidence interval 179 to 329). The median survival time of a chocolate was 51 minutes (39 to 63). The model of chocolate consumption was non-linear, with an initial rapid rate of consumption that slowed with time. An exponential decay model best fitted these findings (model R(2)=0.844, P<0.001), with a survival half life (time taken for 50% of the chocolates to be eaten) of 99 minutes. The mean time taken to open a box of chocolates from first appearance on the ward was 12 minutes (95% confidence interval 0 to 24). Quality Street chocolates survived longer than Roses chocolates (hazard ratio for survival of Roses v Quality Street 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.93, P=0.014). The highest percentages of chocolates were consumed by healthcare assistants (28%) and nurses (28%), followed by doctors (15%). CONCLUSIONS: From our observational study, chocolate survival in a hospital ward was relatively short, and was modelled well by an exponential decay model. Roses chocolates were preferentially consumed to Quality Street chocolates in a ward setting. Chocolates were consumed primarily by healthcare assistants and nurses, followed by doctors. Further practical studies are needed.