View clinical trials related to Medical Emergencies.
Filter by:Demographic changes in the industrialized world are expected to prompt a need for better organized and more efficient health care services. In order to curb costs, health care providers in many countries are searching for viable alternatives to hospitalizations. Norwegian white papers and reform documents presume that the municipalities will play a central role in meeting the growth in demand for health services. Central public policy documents and national research strategies highlight that we need pathways characterized by good quality and safe care, and which are responsive to needs, based on user involvement, continuity of care and successful collaboration within and between service levels. The 2012 Coordination Reform placed new responsibilities on municipalities in the delivery of primary health care services and on hospitals as deliverers of specialist services, as well as on the integration and collaboration between the two organizational levels. This reform mandates that all 428 Norwegian municipalities are obliged to establish or co-operate on establishing Municipal Acute Wards (MAW) (In Norwegian: Kommunale akutte døgnplasser), so as to alleviate pressure on hospitals. However, the research basis for these units is relatively weak. Hence, there is little information on the outcomes regarding the quality, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported as well as personnel-reported outcomes of this new level of care. This study aims at assessing the outcome of admissions to MAWs compared to a general hospital for patients in need of acute care, that can be treated at a lower and decentralized level of health care, with potentially less resources than traditional hospitalizations. The study will use a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design. It builds on previous research and systematic reviews, and aims to assess several outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient experiences, cost-effectiveness, short-term mortality and morbidity, and draws on linkages to national registers.
In a randomised non-inferiority trial the investigators examine two training interventions to train paediatric basic life support to laypersons: Dyad training vs Instructor led training. For dyad training two participants are guided by video instructions and perform exercises on children resuscitation manikins. The participants take turn to complete the exercises and provide feedback to their peer. The duration is up to 50 minutes Instructor led training of paediatric basic life support in instructor led courses with up to 6 participants per course with hands-on training on children resuscitation manikin. The duration of the courses is up to two hours. Instructor led training represents the common gold standard for training Paediatric Basic Life Support, however it is inflexible and uses a lot of resources. Dyad training provides a low cost solution with improved flexibility. Consequently a non-inferiority design is chosen as the benefits of dyad training with the same learning outcomes favours the dyad training method. Prior to the training both groups are informed about and have access to a website with videos, quizzes, pictures and text information on paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management.