ABSTRACT
Periocular necrotising fasciitis is a rare but sight-threatening condition, which relies on clinical judgement to detect in a timely manner. A 51-year-old woman presented to a rural hospital with rapid onset bilateral eye swelling, erythema and pain and was started on broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Upon admission, she became septic and required fluid resuscitation and transfer to a higher level of care. She received debridement and continued intravenous antibiotics, with step down to oral when clinically stable. Rapid recognition and treatment of her condition resulted in a positive outcome.
Subject(s)
Eyelid Diseases/diagnosis , Eyelid Diseases/microbiology , Fasciitis, Necrotizing/diagnosis , Streptococcal Infections/diagnosis , Administration, Intravenous , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Diagnosis, Differential , Eyelid Diseases/drug therapy , Eyelids/microbiology , Fasciitis, Necrotizing/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Penicillanic Acid/analogs & derivatives , Penicillanic Acid/therapeutic use , Piperacillin/therapeutic use , Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination , Streptococcal Infections/drug therapy , Streptococcus pyogenes/isolation & purification , Vancomycin/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Psychological screening of large numbers of personnel returning from deployments should be as brief as possible without sacrificing the ability to detect individuals who are experiencing serious psychological difficulties. This study focused on screening for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology in 421 deployed male members of the Australian Army while they were on deployment and again 3 to 6 months after they returned home. The first aim was to evaluate the performance of the Primary Care--Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen (PC-PTSD) and a 4-item version of the 17-item Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL). A second aim was to evaluate the role of the Kessler-10 (K10) in psychological screening. The results indicated that the short form of the PCL was a better substitute for the full PCL than the PC-PTSD. Other results suggested that a more efficient screening process can be achieved using an initial K10 screening followed by more intensive PTSD screening for people identified as high risk. An additional advantage of an initial K10 filter is that other forms of mental illness could also be targeted in the second-stage screening.
Subject(s)
Mass Screening/methods , Military Personnel/psychology , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Australia , Humans , Iraq War, 2003-2011 , Male , Mental Health , Middle Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite strong academic recognition of the SDOH both in Canada and internationally, acknowledgement and uptake of the SDOH in health policy and public consciousness have remained weak. This paper aims to discern reasons for limited action on the SDOH by examining the perceptions of the SDOH held by two groups more and less affiliated with public health in Canada.We conducted formal consultation with group members on their interpretation of the SDOH and their thoughts on the nature and basis of differences between those more and less aligned with the SDOH as a basis for action. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate the views of the two groups. FINDINGS: Group 1 (community/public health workers) felt overwhelmed when confronted with questions regarding action on the SDOH within the context of their professional lives. They suggested an expanded list of health determinants that included factors such as voluntarism and happiness, transcending traditional notions of "root causes." Furthermore, they did not articulate value-based reasons why others would oppose the SDOH; rather, in line with their professional roles, they adopted a value-neutral and pragmatic approach to working to improve health. Group 2 (child and youth advocacy organization members) seemed rooted in the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion framework, with their recommendations aligned with strategies such as building healthy public policy and reorienting health services. Neither group made reference to issues of social justice or inequity when they made suggestions for improving health. CONCLUSIONS: We found that two groups with different affiliations to formal public health could discuss the SDOH without acknowledging the inequitable distribution of power and resources that lies at its root. We also found that those working in public health had difficulty moving beyond individual actions that they or their clients could take to improve health. For a group more focused on advocacy than direct service provision, the Ottawa Charter framework seemed more easily suited to their recommendations for action than suggesting actions that would address the SDOH. Our findings indicate that there remains work to be done in terms of translating the SDOH concept into action in Canada.
