Archive for March, 2010

Using Kitchen Spoons Ups Risk of Dosing Errors

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

New research suggests that you should steer clear of using ordinary spoons when taking or giving liquid medicines, because the practice raises the risk of potentially dangerous dosing mistakes.

“Clearly we know that there are a lot of people — despite all the alternatives they are offered — who open the kitchen drawer and grab a spoon to serve up their liquid medicine,” observed study co-author Koert van Ittersum, an assistant professor of marketing in the College of Management at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.

“But previous work has already shown that the size of your mug or glass influences how much one pours,” he noted. “Just as the size of a plate influences how much one eats. So, here we have found that utensils also have an effect on dosing because our mind plays tricks on us. And so spoon size matters.”

The findings from van Ittersum and his colleague, Brian Wansink of Cornell University, are published as a letter in the Jan. 5 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The authors point out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration already cautions against the use of any kitchen utensil for measuring liquid medications.

To gauge the potential for incorrect dosing, the researchers tracked the dosing behaviors of 195 college students who had visited a university health clinic around the time the study was launched.

Each student was first asked to pour out exactly 5 milliliters of a liquid cold medicine, using a normal-sized teaspoon so they could clearly visualize how much that amount would be.

Following that exercise, each participant was randomly asked to attempt two more medicine pours: one into a medium-sized tablespoon and a second into an even larger spoon. Confidence levels were assessed to see how secure the students were in their ability to correctly pour the proper dosage.

Despite the fact that most students had “above average” confidence that they had poured accurate doses while using one or the other tablespoon, the authors found that dosages actually varied depending on the size of the spoon.

When using the medium-sized tablespoon, the students underdosed by more than 8 percent, on average. And when using the larger tablespoon, they overdosed by nearly 12 percent, on average.

The researchers concluded that if even well-educated individuals make mistakes after having essentially been trained to pour correct dosages into a spoon, then anyone — even experienced pourers, such as nurses or caregiving parents — run the risk for making similar dosing errors.

The authors therefore strongly encouraged patients and caregivers alike to stick to more reliable dosing instruments, such as measuring caps or droppers, dosing spoons and/or dosing syringes when administering liquid medicines.

“The bottom line is that there are certain cues in our environment that have a huge impact on our behavior,” explained van Ittersum. “So in this case, you have an idea in your mind of what the right dosage should be, but when given an inappropriately sized spoon, you end up pouring to compensate for the mismatch, and that ends up meaning you are likely to overcompensate or undercompensate, which will mean that you will not end up consuming the proper dosage,” he added.

“Now cough medicine, for example, taken in doses that are too much or too little one time is not going to kill you,” he acknowledged. “But if you’re really sick and you’re doing this over an extended period of time it can really add up, and may have real consequences. Particularly for children.”

So, van Ittersum said, “this is a situation in which sometimes we are our own worst enemy. And so I would say that regardless of the fact that it’s sometimes very tempting to go to the drawer and just simply use a spoon, don’t do it. Use the measuring devices that are specifically designed to help measure accurately.”

Sarah Butler, a registered nurse and diabetes education director for the National Association of School Nurses (NASN), said she “certainly agrees that patients should definitely not be using spoons to measure their medicines.”

Furthermore, NASN President Sandi Delack said in a statement that “since it’s essential that liquid medications are measured accurately to ensure proper dosage, school nurses welcome the use of measuring devices provided by the pharmacy or contained in the medication packaging.”

SOURCES: Koert van Ittersum, assistant professor, marketing, College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; Sarah Butler, R.N., diabetes education director, National Association of School Nurses, Silver Spring, Md.; Jan. 5, 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine
HealthDay

Depressed People Can’t Hold Onto Happiness

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

It’s not that depressed people can’t feel good, it’s that they can’t hang on to that feeling, a new study claims.

The novel notion upends previous beliefs that depressed people don’t even start out with positive emotions, and that they have no or little response in the areas of the brain related to good feelings.

“This tells us that a consideration of positive emotion is as important, if not more important, in understanding depression,” said Richard Davidson, senior author of a study appearing online Dec. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It further suggests that we may be able to develop cognitive strategies that aren’t so much focused on minimizing negative emotion but rather enhancing and sustaining positive emotion,” continued Davidson, who is director of the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“Previous knowledge agreed that patients who have anhedonia [inability to experience pleasure, a component of depression] have a decreased ability to experience positive emotions,” added Eva E. Redei, the David Lawrence Stein professor of psychiatry at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The novelty of this finding is that it’s not that they cannot experience positive emotions, but that they can’t hang on to it.”

The findings may also affect which medications are used for different cases of depression, namely that medications that affect the dopamine or reward system of the brain may be effective in this type of disorder.

“Although depression is considered a mood disorder, we really don’t know how mood is disordered in depression,” said Davidson. “One of the ignored areas in depression is the possibility that one of the major abnormalities in depression is not so much a disorder of negative emotion but rather a disorder of positive emotion. The idea here is that patients with depression or at least a subgroup of them have a problem in sustaining or maintaining positive emotion.”

The study was designed to investigate whether people with depression have trouble maintaining positive emotions over time.

Twenty-seven depressed adults and 19 non-depressed controls were asked to look at images meant to elicit positive or negative emotions, such as a nature scene or a mother hugging her baby for the positive side.

“We asked people to feel whatever emotion was elicited by the picture and then enhance the emotion to the best of their ability using mental or cognitive strategies,” Davidson explained.

As an example, participants viewing the mother and baby picture could imagine the love the mother was conveying to her baby.

Participants were then asked to sustain the positive emotion for 45 minutes while undergoing functional MRI.

“What we found is that normal controls are able to do this and show activation in areas of brain that we know are important for positive emotion, especially the nucleus accumbens, which is critical for reward and positive emotion,” Davidson said. “The depressed patients showed activation in this area comparable to healthy controls in the beginning but were unable to sustain this activation over time.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals and different foundations.

Docs Not Giving Clear Advice on Infant Sleep Positions

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

New research finds that although far more caregivers now place babies on their backs to sleep — a practice that reduces the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)– that encouraging trend has leveled off since 2001.

The study also shows that black mothers and caregivers are more likely than whites to place infants on their stomachs to sleep.

But among all races, the most common reasons for using the stomach position were concerns about infant choking and infant comfort, said Dr. Eve Colson, lead author of the study published in the December issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

“It also still looks like the really important thing is that they get very specific advice that they should only put the baby on its back,” added Colson, an associate professor of pediatrics at Yale University School of Medicine.

The onus to deliver that message, she said, lies largely with physicians and health-care providers.

According to background information in the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health, SIDS is the leading cause of death after birth in the United States.

“SIDS is extremely tragic, but the risk period is relatively short. Most occur between 0 and 6 months and the peak period is 2 to 4 months, although cases can occur during the first year,” said Marian Willinger, special assistant for SIDS research at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Since the NICHD launched its Back to Sleep campaign in 1994, the number of babies placed on their backs to sleep jumped from 25 percent to about 70 percent and the SIDs rate declined by more than 50 percent.

Still, black infants have more than double the incidence of SIDS as white infants and are also more likely to be placed on their stomachs for sleeping, the researchers found.

This National Infant Sleep Position study consisted of telephone surveys of nighttime caregivers (usually mothers) of babies aged 7 months or younger. About 1,000 interviews were conducted each year between 1993 and 2007 across the United States.

Throughout the period, the rate of supine sleep (on the back) increased while prone sleeping (on the stomach) decreased over all groups.

But in 2001, that downward slope leveled off across the board.

Those putting babies to sleep on their stomachs, regardless of race, were more likely to express worries about comfort and choking and say they had not been given a clear directive from a doctor.

Yet neither choking nor comfort should be a concern.

“There have been a couple of good studies that babies do not choke on their backs, that there are no adverse health outcomes of putting babies on their back,” Colson said.

“Stomach sleepers spend more time in deeper sleep but that doesn’t mean they’re not sleeping when they’re on their back,” Willinger said. Back sleepers “may wake up more frequently but young babies like that are going to be up to nurse anyway.”

Even sleeping on the side can be risky for babies, Willinger stressed. That’s because babies placed on their sides often roll on to their stomachs.

Almost half the mothers surveyed in the study said that they had received no advice at all from their physician or that he/she had recommended stomach sleeping.

“This gives us a very strong warning signal that we’re not doing a very good job in part of our population, and signal that there may be more ethnic differences,” said Dr. Andrew Colin, director of pediatric pulmonology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

In fact, those ethnic differences may even be biological, he stated, and not resolvable by placing babies on their backs.