Methods: Longitudinal surveillance was conducted over a period of 2 months among hospitals in Lahore, Pakistan. Antibiotic treatment was considered inappropriate on the basis of a wrong dosage regimen, wrong indication, or both based on the British National Formulary.
Results: A total of 2022 antibiotics were given to 1185 patients. Out of the total prescribed, approximately two-thirds of the study population (70.3%) had at least one inappropriate antimicrobial. Overall, 27.2% of patients had respiratory tract infections, and out of these, 62.8% were considered as having inappropriate therapy. Cephalosporins were extensively prescribed among patients, and in many cases, this was inappropriate (67.2%). Penicillins were given to 283 patients, out of which 201 (71.0%) were prescribed for either the wrong indication or dosage or both. Significant variations were also observed regarding inappropriate prescribing for several antimicrobials including the carbapenems (70.9%), aminoglycosides (35.8%), fluoroquinolones (64.2%), macrolides (74.6%) and other antibacterials (73.1%).
Conclusion: Educational interventions, institutional guidelines, and antimicrobial stewardship programs need to be developed to enhance future appropriate antimicrobial use in hospitals in Pakistan. Policies by healthcare and Government officials are also needed to minimize inappropriate antibiotic use.
METHOD: A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger's test at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%).
CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Data from two previous qualitative studies, the Front-line Equitable Evidence-based Decision Making in Medicine and Creating, Synthesising and Implementing evidence-based medicine (EBM) in primary care studies, were sorted, arranged, classified and compared with the help of qualitative research software, NVivo V.10. Data categories were interrogated through comparison between and within datasets to identify similarities and differences in rural and urban practices. Themes were then refined by removing or recoding redundant and infrequent nodes into major key themes.
PARTICIPANTS: There were 55 primary care physicians who participated in 10 focus group discussions (n=31) and 9 individual physician in-depth interviews.
SETTING: The study was conducted across three primary care settings-an academic primary care practice and both private and public health clinics in rural (Pahang) and urban (Selangor and Kuala Lumpur) settings in Malaysia.
RESULTS: We identified five major themes that influenced the implementation of EBM according to practice settings, namely, workplace factors, EBM understanding and awareness, work experience and access to specialist placement, availability of resources and patient population. Lack of standardised care is a contributing factor to differences in EBM practice, especially in rural areas.
CONCLUSIONS: There were major differences in the practice of EBM between rural and urban primary care settings. These findings could be used by policy-makers, administrators and the physicians themselves to identify strategies to improve EBM practices that are targeted according to workplace settings.
METHODS: Two cross-sectional, anonymized, online surveys were completed between July and December 2022 by physicians diagnosing and treating HCC (55 questions on risk factors, surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment) and patients ≥ 18 years old diagnosed with HCC (36 questions on disease knowledge, quality of life, and experiences of diagnosis and treatment).
RESULTS: Responses were received from 276 physicians in all 7 countries and 130 patients in Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam. From the physician's perspective, surveillance programs are widespread but identify insufficient HCC cases; only 18% are early-stage HCC at diagnosis. From the patient's perspective, knowledge of risk factors increases after diagnosis, but few seek support from patient associations; patients would benefit from better communication from their doctors. Treatment affordability and side effects are key issues for patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the risk factors for HCC should be raised in primary care and the general population, and surveillance should identify early-stage HCC. Because patients rely on their doctors for support, doctors should better understand their patients' needs, and patients could be supported by trained nurses or case managers. Programs are needed to increase patients' access to proven HCC treatments.
METHODS: A simulated patient method was used to evaluate pharmacist counseling practices in Sydney, Australia. Twenty community pharmacists received three simulated patient visits concerning antidepressant adherence-related scenarios at different phases of treatment: 1) patient receiving a first-time antidepressant prescription and hesitant to begin treatment; 2) patient perceiving lack of treatment efficacy for antidepressant after starting treatment for 2 weeks; and 3) patient wanting to discontinue antidepressant treatment after 3 months due to perceived symptom improvement. The interactions were recorded and analyzed to evaluate the content of consultations in terms of information gathering, information provision including key educational messages, and treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: There was variability among community pharmacists in terms of the extent and content of information gathered and provided. In scenario 1, while some key educational messages such as possible side effects and expected benefits from antidepressants were mentioned frequently, others such as the recommended length of treatment and adherence-related messages were rarely addressed. In all scenarios, about two thirds of pharmacists explored patients' concerns about antidepressant treatment. In scenarios 2 and 3, only half of all pharmacists' consultations involved questions to assess the patient's medication use. The pharmacists' main recommendation in response to the patient query was to refer the patient back to the prescribing physician.
CONCLUSION: The majority of pharmacists provided information about the risks and benefits of antidepressant treatment. However, there remains scope for improvement in community pharmacists' counseling practice for patients on antidepressant treatment, particularly in providing key educational messages including adherence-related messages, exploring patients' concerns, and monitoring medication adherence.
METHODS: Seventy-seven medical doctors and eighty nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire designed to capture demographic data and information regarding abbreviation use in medical practice. Comparisons were made between doctors and nurses with regards to frequency and reasons for using abbreviations; from where abbreviations were learned; frequency of encountering abbreviations in medical practice; prevalence of medical errors due to misinterpretation of abbreviations; and their ability to correctly interpret commonly used abbreviations.
RESULTS: The use of abbreviations was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses. Time saving, avoidance of writing sentences in full and convenience, were the main reasons for using abbreviations. Doctors learned abbreviations from fellow doctors while nurses learned from fellow nurses and doctors. More doctors than nurses reported encountering abbreviations. Both groups reported no difficulties in interpreting abbreviations although nurses reported often resorting to guesswork. Both groups felt abbreviations were necessary and an acceptable part of work. Doctors outperformed nurses in correctly interpreting commonly used standard and non-standard abbreviations.
CONCLUSION: The use of standard and non-standard abbreviation in clinical practice by doctors and nurses was highly prevalent. Significant variability in interpretation of abbreviations exists between doctors and nurses.