Management of poisoning with ethylene glycol and methanol in the UK: a prospective study conducted by the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS).

BACKGROUND: Poisoning with methanol and ethylene glycol can cause serious morbidity and mortality. Specific treatment involves the use of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) with or without extracorporeal elimination techniques. METHODS: A prospective audit of patients with methanol or ethylene glycol poisoning reported by telephone to the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) in the UK was conducted during the 2010 calendar year and repeated during the 2012 calendar year. The study was conducted to determine the frequency of clinically significant systemic toxicity and requirement for antidote use and to compare outcomes and rates of adverse reaction and other problems in use between ethanol and fomepizole. RESULTS: The NPIS received 1315 enquiries involving methanol or ethylene glycol, relating to 1070 individual exposures over the 2-year period. Of the 548 enquiries originating from hospitals, 329 involved systemic exposures (enteral or parenteral as opposed to topical exposure), of which 216 (66%) received an antidote (204 for ethylene glycol and 12 for methanol), and 90 (27%) extracorporeal treatment (86 for ethylene glycol and 4 for methanol). Comparing ethanol with fomepizole, adverse reactions (16/131 vs. 2/125, p < 0.001) and administration errors, lack of monitoring, or inappropriate use (45/131 vs. 6/125, p < 0.0001) were reported more commonly, whereas non-availability and inadequate stocks were reported less commonly (6/125 vs. 33/131, p < 0.0001). Eight fatalities and complications or sequelae occurred in 21 patients. Poor outcome (death, complications, or sequelae) was significantly associated with older age, higher poisoning severity scores, and lower pH on admission (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic poisoning with ethylene glycol or methanol results in hospitalisation at least 2-3 times per week on average in the UK. No difference in outcome was detected between ethanol and fomepizole-treated patients, but ethanol was associated with more frequent adverse reactions.

Performance in the MRCP(UK) Examination 2003-4: analysis of pass rates of UK graduates in relation to self-declared ethnicity and gender.

BACKGROUND: Male students and students from ethnic minorities have been reported to under-perform in undergraduate medical examinations. We examined the effects of ethnicity and gender on pass rates in UK medical graduates sitting the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians in the United Kingdom [MRCP(UK)] Examination in 2003-4. METHODS: Pass rates for each part of the examination were analysed for differences between graduate groupings based on self-declared ethnicity and gender. RESULTS: All candidates declared their gender, and 84-90% declared their ethnicity. In all three parts of the examination, white candidates performed better than other ethnic groups (P < 0.001). In the MRCP(UK) Part 1 and Part 2 Written Examinations, there was no significant difference in pass rate between male and female graduates, nor was there any interaction between gender and ethnicity. In the Part 2 Clinical Examination (Practical Assessment of Clinical Examination Skills, PACES), women performed better than did men (P < 0.001). Non-white men performed more poorly than expected, relative to white men or non-white women. Analysis of individual station marks showed significant interaction between candidate and examiner ethnicity for performance on communication skills (P = 0.011), but not on clinical skills (P = 0.176). Analysis of overall average marks showed no interaction between candidate gender and the number of assessments made by female examiners (P = 0.151). CONCLUSION: The cause of these differences is most likely to be multifactorial, but cannot be readily explained in terms of previous educational experience or differential performance on particular parts of the examination. Potential examiner prejudice, significant only in the cases where there were two non-white examiners and the candidate was non-white, might indicate different cultural interpretations of the judgements being made.