The Language of the UDDA is Sufficiently Precise and Pragmatic.

We have a reason to value the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Since enactment, the UDDA has been of paramount importance to US citizens, families of comatose patients, and the health care professionals who care for them. The UDDA sets forth two standards for determining death and leaves to the medical community to elaborate criteria by which physicians can determine when those standards have been met. Neurologists and neurocritical care experts always have been center stage in this effort. Perfectly established, why change it? What ignited the recent review of the UDDA were lawsuits questioning medical (neurological) authority leading to the wording and accuracy of the UDDA being revisited. The major objections to the language of the UDDA by several groups led a committee appointed by the Uniform Law Commission to consider several substantial changes in the Act. After several years of discussion without reaching a consensus, the committee's chair suspended the effort. Upending the UDDA will lead to a legal crisis and confusion across the states. We present our main arguments against revising this statute and argue that the committee's failure to revise the UDDA should actually be seen as a necessary success.

Improving Outcome in Severe Myasthenia Gravis and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

When progressive and severe, myasthenia gravis and Guillain-Barré syndrome may have the potential for fatal and unfavorable clinical outcomes. Regardless of important differences in their clinical course, the development of weakness of oropharyngeal muscles and respiratory failure with requirement of mechanical ventilation is the main driver of poor prognosis in both conditions. The need for prolonged mechanical ventilation is particularly relevant because it immobilizes the patient and care becomes extraordinarily complex due to daily risks of systemic complications. Additionally, patients with myasthenia gravis often require long-term immunosuppressive treatments with associated toxicity and infectious risks. Unlike myasthenia gravis, the recovery period is prolonged in Guillain-Barré syndrome, but often favorable, even in the more severely affected patients. Outcome, for a large part, is determined by expert neurocritical care.

The Delphi Delirium Management Algorithms. A practical tool for clinicians, the result of a modified Delphi expert consensus approach.

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients, and there is currently no specific treatment. Identifying and treating underlying somatic causes of delirium is the first priority once delirium is diagnosed. Several international guidelines provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to screening, diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. However, current guidelines do not offer a structured approach to identification of underlying causes. A panel of 37 internationally recognised delirium experts from diverse medical backgrounds worked together in a modified Delphi approach via an online platform. Consensus was reached after five voting rounds. The final product of this project is a set of three delirium management algorithms (the Delirium Delphi Algorithms), one for ward patients, one for patients after cardiac surgery and one for patients in the intensive care unit.

Clinical observations in acute neurology: A historical explanation of the present.

BACKGROUND: The history of the development of acute neurologic disease as a biologic mechanism is of interest. Equally important is how it translated to the bedside and how the clinical examination differentiated itself. METHODS: This paper reviews primary sources pertaining to acute neurologic conditions described mostly in the 19th and 20th century. A review of monographs, treatises, textbooks, and peer-reviewed articles was conducted. RESULTS: The evolution of clinical signs and syndromes associated with dynamic intracranial pathologies was predicated on the idea that animal studies informed clinicians, who then linked clinical signs to these observations. A dominant theme is that innovative technologies could trace acute processes through all their various stages, affording a complete picture of the disease process. Just as clinical descriptors of central nervous system processes evolved, the presentation of acute neuromuscular respiratory failure became better defined. Once practices incorporated these acute clinical signs, textbooks cemented their "gold standard" status with relative impunity. CONCLUSIONS: The practise of acute neurology and neurocritical care must find out what, historically, others were seeking but could not find. Patterns of clinical presentation in acute neurology are sufficiently recognizable to guide practise decisions. Although, the currently well-documented clinical syndromes of acute neurologic conditions (at presentation and during deterioration) have been taught for generations, practitioners have noted that they lack consistency and predictability. History also taught us that part of this improved knowledge came with designated units-a clear example of how protean systems (not always innovative neurologists or neuroscientists or technologies) shaped the history of neurology.