RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Long waiting times in accident and emergency (A&E) departments remain one of the largest barriers to the timely assessment of critically unwell patients. In order to reduce the burden on A&Es, some trusts have introduced ambulatory care areas (ACAs) which provide acute assessment for general practitioner referrals. However, ACAs are often based on already busy acute medical wards and the availability of clinical space for clerking patients means that these patients often face long waiting times too. A cheap and sustainable method to reducing waiting times is to evaluate current space utilisation with the view to making use of underutilised workspace. The aim of this quality improvement project was to improve accessibility to pre-existing clinical spaces, and in doing so, reduce waiting times in acute admissions. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from electronic systems and used to establish a baseline wait time from arrival to having blood taken (primary outcome). Quality improvement methods were used to identify potential implementations to reduce waiting time, by increasing access to clinical space, with serial measurements of the primary outcome being used to monitor change. RESULTS: Data were collected over 54 consecutive days. The median wait time increased by 55 min during the project period. However, this difference in waiting time was not deemed significant between the three PDSA cycles (p=0.419, p=0.270 and p=0.350, Mann-Whitney U). Run chart analysis confirmed no significant changes occurred. CONCLUSION: In acute services, one limiting factor to seeing patients quickly is room availability. Quality improvement projects, such as this, should consider facilitating better use of available space and creating new clinical workspaces. This offers the possibility of reducing waiting times for both staff and patients alike. We recommend future projects focus efforts on integration of their interventions to generate significant improvements.
RESUMO
It is widely accepted by developmental biologists that the malleus and incus of the mammalian middle ear are first pharyngeal arch derivatives, a contention based originally on classical embryology that has now been backed up by molecular evidence from rodent models. However, it has been claimed in several studies of human ossicular development that the manubrium of the malleus and long process of the incus are actually derived from the second arch. This 'dual-arch' interpretation is commonly presented in otolaryngology textbooks, and it has been used by clinicians to explain the aetiology of certain congenital abnormalities of the human middle ear. In order to re-examine the origins of the human malleus and incus, we made three-dimensional reconstructions of the pharyngeal region of human embryos from 7 to 28â mm crown-rump length, based on serial histological sections from the Boyd Collection. We considered the positions of the developing ossicles relative to the pharyngeal pouches and clefts, and the facial and chorda tympani nerves. Confirming observations from previous studies, the primary union between first pharyngeal pouch and first cleft found in our youngest specimens was later lost, the external meatus developing rostroventral to this position. The mesenchyme of the first and second arches in these early embryos seemed to be continuous, but the boundaries of the developing ossicles proved to be very hard to determine at this stage. When first distinguishable, the indications were that both the manubrium of the malleus and the long process of the incus were emerging within the first pharyngeal arch. We therefore conclude that the histological evidence, on balance, favours the 'classical' notion that the human malleus and incus are first-arch structures. The embryological basis of congenital ossicular abnormalities should be reconsidered in this light.
