We present a case of a fatal toxic leukoencephalopathy following ingestion of a new psychoactive designer drug known as 2C-E or “Europa.” Recreational drugs, particularly hallucinogenic substances, appear to be growing in popularity, with increasing amounts of information available via the Internet to entice potential users. In addition, some newer “designer” psychoactive substances are available for purchase online without adverse legal consequences, therefore adding to their popularity. We describe magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings to include selective diffuse toxic injury of the cerebral white matter with sparing of the cortex and most of the deep gray nuclei. To our knowledge, this is the first reported description of cerebral findings on MRI that are likely related to a lethal ingestion of 2C-E.

Background

Preventive health care is an important part of general practice however uptake of activities by patients is variable. Monetary incentives for doctors have been used in the UK and Australia to improve rates of screening and immunisation. Few studies have focussed on incentives for patients to attend preventive health care examinations. Our objective was to investigate the use of a monetary incentive to increase patient attendance with their general practitioner for a cardiovascular risk assessment (CVRA).

Methods

A pragmatic RCT was conducted in two Australian general practices. Participating GPs underwent academic detailing for cardiovascular risk assessment. 301 patients aged 40–74, who did not have cardiovascular disease, were independently randomised to receive a letter inviting them to a no cost cardiovascular risk assessment with their GP, or the same letter plus an offer of a $25 shopping voucher if they attended. An audit of patient medical records was also undertaken and a patient questionnaire administered to a sub sample of participants. Our main outcome measure was attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment.

Results

In the RCT, 56/301(18.6%) patients attended for cardiovascular risk assessment, 29/182 (15.9%) in the control group and 27/119 (22.7%) in the intervention group. The estimated difference of 6.8% (95% CI: -2.5% to 16.0%) was not statistically significant, P = 0.15. The audit showed that GPs may underestimate patients’ absolute cardiovascular risk and the questionnaire that mailed invitations from GPs for a CVRA may encourage patients to attend.

Conclusions

A small monetary incentive does not improve attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment. Further research should be undertaken to determine if there are other incentives that may increase attendance for preventive activities in the general practice setting.

Clinical trials registration

ACTRN12608000183381

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes run in secondary care have proved to be one of the most effective interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AIM: To assess whether a pulmonary rehabilitation programme, similar to that run in secondary care, could be established in a primary care-run community hospital and whether it could achieve similar benefits in patents with moderately severe COPD. DESIGN OF STUDY: Uncontrolled prospective intervention study SETTING: A primary care-run community hospital. METHOD: Thirty-four patients with COPD aged between 5 and 80 years of age (mean = 70years) with a forced expiratory volume (FEV1) of 30 to 50% (mean = 40%) predicted were enrolled in a programme established in the activities room at Honiton Community Hospital. Patients were assessed at the start, on completion of the programme, and six months after completion, using spirometry, shuttle-walking distance, and short form-36 (SF-36) and chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ) scores. RESULTS: All but one patient completed the programme. There were significant improvements in the walking distance (by a mean of 100 m), in the SF-36, and in all domains of the CRQ. There was no significant change in the FEV1 or forced vital capacity. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes can be run in community hospitals. They appear to be as effective as those run in secondary care and patients may find them easier to access.