Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits

To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:La Presse médicale (1983) 2010-02, Vol.39 (2), p.e29
Hauptverfasser: Crocheton, Nicolas, Machet, Ewa, Haouache, Hakim, Houdart, Eric, Huat, Georges, Claverot, José, Fortin, Bruno, Lapostolle, Frédéric
Format: Artikel
Sprache:fre
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page e29
container_title La Presse médicale (1983)
container_volume 39
creator Crocheton, Nicolas
Machet, Ewa
Haouache, Hakim
Houdart, Eric
Huat, Georges
Claverot, José
Fortin, Bruno
Lapostolle, Frédéric
description To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm. Measurement of CO in expired breath was also possible. Activity and alarms were prospectively collected. Circumstances of intoxication were recorded. Evaluation was finally performed. The end-poind was to quantify CO-poisoning detected by the use of the device and the cost of this stratégy. From November 2001 to November 2004, 65 scenes of intoxication with 79 victims were prospectively reported by 12 general practionners. Final evaluation revealed that 23 physicians omitted to declare alarms. Alarm incidence was of 1 for 17.527 visits; with a related cost of approximately 858 euros for 24 months. Ambient carbon monoxide concentration exceeded 200ppm in 25% of cases. Hospital admission was required for 91% of the victims. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed in two cases. General practionners (n=272) considered that CO detector was useful for safety reasons (91%), they wanted to continue the experience, but did not plan to buy such device (59%). Use of CO detectors by general practionners visiting patients at home allowed to identify 65 scenes of CO intoxication. In most cases, the cause of the visit did not suggested CO poisoning. The cost of the device seems to limits its large use. CO detector is a safety tool for both general prationners and patients. Its large use has to be questioned.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.lpm.2009.07.021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_19815370</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>19815370</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p550-67d70953416dd65cf65609f98a917828490dd44b2c84f8528c045359901921603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1j0tLxDAYRYMgzjj6A9xIlrpo_fJOllIcFQZmYfdD26RjhjYpSRXn3zv4WF3u4XLgInRDoCRA5MOhHKaxpACmBFUCJWdoSSlhBVAlF-gy5wOcKFfmAi2I0UQwBUtUv3XJueDDHvcx4a5JbQx4jCF-eevwXbW9x1P0Of5M2iPeu-BSM-ApNd3sZx9PNWMf8HscHf702c_5Cp33zZDd9V-uUL1-qquXYrN9fq0eN8UkBBRSWQVGME6ktVJ0vRQSTG90Y4jSVHMD1nLe0k7zXguqO-CCCWOAGEoksBW6_dVOH-3o7G5KfmzScff_jn0DQxNO3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Crocheton, Nicolas ; Machet, Ewa ; Haouache, Hakim ; Houdart, Eric ; Huat, Georges ; Claverot, José ; Fortin, Bruno ; Lapostolle, Frédéric</creator><creatorcontrib>Crocheton, Nicolas ; Machet, Ewa ; Haouache, Hakim ; Houdart, Eric ; Huat, Georges ; Claverot, José ; Fortin, Bruno ; Lapostolle, Frédéric</creatorcontrib><description>To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm. Measurement of CO in expired breath was also possible. Activity and alarms were prospectively collected. Circumstances of intoxication were recorded. Evaluation was finally performed. The end-poind was to quantify CO-poisoning detected by the use of the device and the cost of this stratégy. From November 2001 to November 2004, 65 scenes of intoxication with 79 victims were prospectively reported by 12 general practionners. Final evaluation revealed that 23 physicians omitted to declare alarms. Alarm incidence was of 1 for 17.527 visits; with a related cost of approximately 858 euros for 24 months. Ambient carbon monoxide concentration exceeded 200ppm in 25% of cases. Hospital admission was required for 91% of the victims. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed in two cases. General practionners (n=272) considered that CO detector was useful for safety reasons (91%), they wanted to continue the experience, but did not plan to buy such device (59%). Use of CO detectors by general practionners visiting patients at home allowed to identify 65 scenes of CO intoxication. In most cases, the cause of the visit did not suggested CO poisoning. The cost of the device seems to limits its large use. CO detector is a safety tool for both general prationners and patients. Its large use has to be questioned.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2213-0276</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.lpm.2009.07.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19815370</identifier><language>fre</language><publisher>France</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects ; Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Carbon Monoxide - adverse effects ; Carbon Monoxide - analysis ; Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - complications ; Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - diagnosis ; Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - epidemiology ; Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - therapy ; Electrochemical Techniques - economics ; Electrochemical Techniques - instrumentation ; Environmental Monitoring - economics ; Environmental Monitoring - instrumentation ; Environmental Monitoring - methods ; Epidemiological Monitoring ; Equipment Design ; Family Practice - economics ; Family Practice - methods ; Female ; France - epidemiology ; House Calls - economics ; Humans ; Hyperbaric Oxygenation ; Male ; Patient Admission - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Physicians, Family - psychology ; Prospective Studies ; Safety Management ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>La Presse médicale (1983), 2010-02, Vol.39 (2), p.e29</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2009 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815370$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Crocheton, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machet, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haouache, Hakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Houdart, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huat, Georges</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claverot, José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortin, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lapostolle, Frédéric</creatorcontrib><title>Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits</title><title>La Presse médicale (1983)</title><addtitle>Presse Med</addtitle><description>To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm. Measurement of CO in expired breath was also possible. Activity and alarms were prospectively collected. Circumstances of intoxication were recorded. Evaluation was finally performed. The end-poind was to quantify CO-poisoning detected by the use of the device and the cost of this stratégy. From November 2001 to November 2004, 65 scenes of intoxication with 79 victims were prospectively reported by 12 general practionners. Final evaluation revealed that 23 physicians omitted to declare alarms. Alarm incidence was of 1 for 17.527 visits; with a related cost of approximately 858 euros for 24 months. Ambient carbon monoxide concentration exceeded 200ppm in 25% of cases. Hospital admission was required for 91% of the victims. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed in two cases. General practionners (n=272) considered that CO detector was useful for safety reasons (91%), they wanted to continue the experience, but did not plan to buy such device (59%). Use of CO detectors by general practionners visiting patients at home allowed to identify 65 scenes of CO intoxication. In most cases, the cause of the visit did not suggested CO poisoning. The cost of the device seems to limits its large use. CO detector is a safety tool for both general prationners and patients. Its large use has to be questioned.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects</subject><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Carbon Monoxide - adverse effects</subject><subject>Carbon Monoxide - analysis</subject><subject>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - complications</subject><subject>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - diagnosis</subject><subject>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - epidemiology</subject><subject>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - therapy</subject><subject>Electrochemical Techniques - economics</subject><subject>Electrochemical Techniques - instrumentation</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - economics</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - instrumentation</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Epidemiological Monitoring</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Family Practice - economics</subject><subject>Family Practice - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>France - epidemiology</subject><subject>House Calls - economics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hyperbaric Oxygenation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Patient Admission - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Physicians, Family - psychology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Safety Management</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>2213-0276</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1j0tLxDAYRYMgzjj6A9xIlrpo_fJOllIcFQZmYfdD26RjhjYpSRXn3zv4WF3u4XLgInRDoCRA5MOhHKaxpACmBFUCJWdoSSlhBVAlF-gy5wOcKFfmAi2I0UQwBUtUv3XJueDDHvcx4a5JbQx4jCF-eevwXbW9x1P0Of5M2iPeu-BSM-ApNd3sZx9PNWMf8HscHf702c_5Cp33zZDd9V-uUL1-qquXYrN9fq0eN8UkBBRSWQVGME6ktVJ0vRQSTG90Y4jSVHMD1nLe0k7zXguqO-CCCWOAGEoksBW6_dVOH-3o7G5KfmzScff_jn0DQxNO3g</recordid><startdate>201002</startdate><enddate>201002</enddate><creator>Crocheton, Nicolas</creator><creator>Machet, Ewa</creator><creator>Haouache, Hakim</creator><creator>Houdart, Eric</creator><creator>Huat, Georges</creator><creator>Claverot, José</creator><creator>Fortin, Bruno</creator><creator>Lapostolle, Frédéric</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201002</creationdate><title>Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits</title><author>Crocheton, Nicolas ; Machet, Ewa ; Haouache, Hakim ; Houdart, Eric ; Huat, Georges ; Claverot, José ; Fortin, Bruno ; Lapostolle, Frédéric</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p550-67d70953416dd65cf65609f98a917828490dd44b2c84f8528c045359901921603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>fre</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects</topic><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Carbon Monoxide - adverse effects</topic><topic>Carbon Monoxide - analysis</topic><topic>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - complications</topic><topic>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - diagnosis</topic><topic>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - epidemiology</topic><topic>Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - therapy</topic><topic>Electrochemical Techniques - economics</topic><topic>Electrochemical Techniques - instrumentation</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - economics</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - instrumentation</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Epidemiological Monitoring</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Family Practice - economics</topic><topic>Family Practice - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>France - epidemiology</topic><topic>House Calls - economics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hyperbaric Oxygenation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Patient Admission - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Physicians, Family - psychology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Safety Management</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Crocheton, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machet, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haouache, Hakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Houdart, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huat, Georges</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claverot, José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortin, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lapostolle, Frédéric</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><jtitle>La Presse médicale (1983)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Crocheton, Nicolas</au><au>Machet, Ewa</au><au>Haouache, Hakim</au><au>Houdart, Eric</au><au>Huat, Georges</au><au>Claverot, José</au><au>Fortin, Bruno</au><au>Lapostolle, Frédéric</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits</atitle><jtitle>La Presse médicale (1983)</jtitle><addtitle>Presse Med</addtitle><date>2010-02</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e29</spage><pages>e29-</pages><eissn>2213-0276</eissn><abstract>To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm. Measurement of CO in expired breath was also possible. Activity and alarms were prospectively collected. Circumstances of intoxication were recorded. Evaluation was finally performed. The end-poind was to quantify CO-poisoning detected by the use of the device and the cost of this stratégy. From November 2001 to November 2004, 65 scenes of intoxication with 79 victims were prospectively reported by 12 general practionners. Final evaluation revealed that 23 physicians omitted to declare alarms. Alarm incidence was of 1 for 17.527 visits; with a related cost of approximately 858 euros for 24 months. Ambient carbon monoxide concentration exceeded 200ppm in 25% of cases. Hospital admission was required for 91% of the victims. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed in two cases. General practionners (n=272) considered that CO detector was useful for safety reasons (91%), they wanted to continue the experience, but did not plan to buy such device (59%). Use of CO detectors by general practionners visiting patients at home allowed to identify 65 scenes of CO intoxication. In most cases, the cause of the visit did not suggested CO poisoning. The cost of the device seems to limits its large use. CO detector is a safety tool for both general prationners and patients. Its large use has to be questioned.</abstract><cop>France</cop><pmid>19815370</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.lpm.2009.07.021</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2213-0276
ispartof La Presse médicale (1983), 2010-02, Vol.39 (2), p.e29
issn 2213-0276
language fre
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_19815370
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Air Pollution, Indoor - adverse effects
Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis
Attitude of Health Personnel
Carbon Monoxide - adverse effects
Carbon Monoxide - analysis
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - complications
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - diagnosis
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - epidemiology
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - therapy
Electrochemical Techniques - economics
Electrochemical Techniques - instrumentation
Environmental Monitoring - economics
Environmental Monitoring - instrumentation
Environmental Monitoring - methods
Epidemiological Monitoring
Equipment Design
Family Practice - economics
Family Practice - methods
Female
France - epidemiology
House Calls - economics
Humans
Hyperbaric Oxygenation
Male
Patient Admission - statistics & numerical data
Physicians, Family - psychology
Prospective Studies
Safety Management
Surveys and Questionnaires
title Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T18%3A22%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Screening%20for%20carbon%20monoxide%20(CO)%20poisoning%20by%20general%20practitioners%20in%20home%20visits&rft.jtitle=La%20Presse%20m%C3%A9dicale%20(1983)&rft.au=Crocheton,%20Nicolas&rft.date=2010-02&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e29&rft.pages=e29-&rft.eissn=2213-0276&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.lpm.2009.07.021&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed%3E19815370%3C/pubmed%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/19815370&rfr_iscdi=true