scholarly journals Fever in the returned traveller

2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-14
Author(s):  
Mark Melzer ◽  
◽  
G Pasvol ◽  

The diagnosis of fever in the returned traveller is an important challenge to the physician. An accurate travel history and knowledge of the incubation period of common diseases is required to assess the risk of infection with a specific infectious agent. Although many febrile illnesses are benign and self-limiting, failure to diagnose malaria and enteric fevers may have disastrous consequences. All patients returning with fever should have thick and thin blood films for malaria and blood cultures performed. Other haematological and biochemical tests are useful in identifying a group of patients in whom empirical anti-microbial therapy is indicated. Thought must be given to the isolation of patients and notification of certain suspected or proven diseases to the local Consultant for Communicable Disease Control. Preventative measures in those likely to travel again should be discussed.

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Heydon

This article explores the introduction of smallpox vaccination into Nepal in 1816 at the request of the Nepalese government; the king, however, was not vaccinated, contracted the disease and died. British hopes that vaccination would be extended throughout the country did not eventuate. The article examines the significance of this early appearance of vaccination in Nepal for both Nepalese and British, and relates it to the longer history of smallpox control and eventual eradication. When the Nepalese requested World Health Organization (WHO) assistance with communicable disease control in the mid-twentieth century little had changed for most Nepalese. We know about the events in 1816 through the letters of the newly imposed British Resident after Nepal’s military defeat in the Anglo-Nepal War (1814–16). By also drawing on other sources and foregrounding Nepal, it becomes possible to build up a more extensive picture of smallpox in Nepal that shows not only boundaries and limits to colonial authority and influence but also how governments may adopt and use technologies on their own terms and for their own purposes. Linking 1816 to the ultimately successful global eradication programme 150 years later reminds us of the need to think longer term as to why policies and programmes may or may not work as planned.


2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Libera Clemente ◽  
Dana Dragovic ◽  
Cristina Milocco ◽  
Francesco Fontana

<em>Bacillus</em> <em>pumilus</em> is an environmental contaminant, rarely associated with human diseases. In this report we describe a case of a severe sepsis caused by B. pumilus in a 7-year-old healthy child. The microorganism has been isolated from two blood cultures and has been identified using both biochemical tests and mass spectrometry. The patient fully recovered after an ampicillin treatment.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-165

In the light of present scientific knowledge, approximately 200 drugs are indispensable for the health care of the vast majority of the world's population. This was the conclusion of the WHO Expert Committee on the Selection of Essential Drugs, which met in Geneva from 17 to 22 October. The committee's full report will be submitted, together with other Expert Committee reports, to the Executive Board of WHO during its 11-27 January 1978 session. In its deliberations the Committee benefited from the worldwide response to a preliminary model list issued after a consultation held in Geneva in October 1976. Comments and suggestions were received from the six regional offices of WHO, more than 100 experts from over 40 countries, and nongovernmental organizations in official relations with WHO. The Committee drew attention to the fact that drug costs account for up to 40% of the total health budget in some developing countries. In affluent nations as well, governments appear to be increasingly worried by the rising expenditure for pharmaceutical products. In the least developed countries, where communicable disease control and elementary health care are the major concerns, large segments of the population are in urgent need of essential drugs and vaccines. For their limited financial resources to be put to optimal use, the drugs available must be restricted to those proven to be therapeutically effective, to have acceptable safety, and to satisfy the health needs of the population.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  

Abstract Many countries in Europe and beyond have recognized that improved collaboration between public health and primary care can yield substantial benefits to populations and patients (e.g. through improved chronic disease management, communicable disease control, and maternal and child health), but it is in practice unclear how this improved collaboration can be achieved. Furthermore, collaboration is often hampered by the way that both sectors are organized and financed, with substantial differences across and sometimes within countries. In most European countries primary care already performs some public health functions, while public health can help to make the provision of primary care more effective. Screening and immunization, for example, as well as interventions to support healthy lifestyles, are public health functions that are nowadays commonly provided in primary care, although with wide variations between countries in the number of preventive care services provided in primary care. The question is how to expand and further develop existing collaborations. This workshop investigates the types of initiatives that have been undertaken, the factors that can enhance or hinder the collaboration between primary care and public health, and what can be undertaken to increase the chances of successful collaboration. It identifies organizational models of primary care that are conducive to collaboration with public health (e.g. through integrating primary care and public health in the provision of care for individuals), as well as systemic, organizational and interpersonal factors that can hinder or facilitate collaboration. The workshop draws on the findings of a forthcoming Observatory policy brief on enhanced primary care and public health collaboration, covering such areas as community engagement and participation, health promotion, health education, prevention activities, chronic disease management, screening, immunization and communicable disease control, information systems activities, development of best practice guidelines, conducting needs assessments, quality assurance and evaluation, and professional education. The workshop will begin with a presentation of the main findings of the policy brief, followed by a panel discussion involving European experts and policy-makers. In addition to sharing the experience of their countries, panelists will reflect on how generalizable or transferable examples of successful collaboration are and what it takes to overcome existing barriers. The workshop is designed to provide ample opportunity for the audience to comment on and discuss presentations and the contributions of panelists and to consider what lessons can be transferred across countries. It will be of interest to public health researchers, practitioners and policy-makers from across Europe. Key messages The workshop provides a forum for discussing how to enhance collaboration between public health and primary care. It explores innovative approaches, organizational models, and policy options.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document