DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study consisting of a single group before-and-after study design.
SETTING: A public emergency hospital in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
PARTICIPANTS: 660 (preintervention) and then 498 (postintervention) handwritten physician orders, medication administration records (MRAs) and pharmacy dispensing sheets of 482 and 388 patients, respectively, from emergency wards, inpatient settings and the pharmacy department were reviewed.
INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a series of interactive lectures delivered by an experienced clinical pharmacist to all hospital staff members and dissemination of educational tools (flash cards, printed list of HRAs, awareness posters) designed in line with the recommendations of the Institute for Safe Medical Practices and the US Food and Drug Administration. The duration of intervention was from April to May 2011.
MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction in the incidence of HRAs use from the preintervention to postintervention study period.
FINDINGS: The five most common abbreviations recorded prior to the interventions were 'IJ for injection' (28.6%), 'SC for subcutaneous' (17.4%), drug name and dose running together (9.7%), 'OD for once daily' (5.8%) and 'D/C for discharge' (4.3%). The incidence of the use of HRAs was highest in discharge prescriptions and dispensing records (72.7%) followed by prescriptions from in-patient wards (47.3%). After the intervention, the overall incidence of HRA was significantly reduced by 52% (ie, 53.6% vs 25.5%; p=0.001). In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of HRAs across all three settings: the pharmacy department (72.7% vs 39.3%), inpatient settings (47.3% vs 23.3%) and emergency wards (40.9% vs 10.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led educational interventions can significantly reduce the use of HRAs by healthcare providers. Future research should investigate the long-term effectiveness of such educational interventions through a randomised controlled trial.
METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences.
RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open label, single-arm, observational, post marketing study, patients received biphasic isophane insulin injection as per the Prescribing Information; and were assessed for safety (adverse events including hypoglycaemia), effectiveness (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c]; fasting blood sugar, [FBS]; and patient's condition by patient and physician) over a period of 24 weeks.
RESULTS: Adult male and female diabetes patients (N=119; type 2 DM, n=117) with a mean (SD) diabetes duration of 13 years were included. No new safety signals have been identified. Significant reduction in HbA1c was observed at weeks 12 and 24 (mean [SD] - baseline: 9.6% [1.9]; Week 12: 9.0% [1.7] and at Week 24: 9.1% [1.7]; p < 0.001). There were 10 serious and 9 non-serious adverse events reported in the study. Expected mild events included hypoglycaemia and injection site pruritus. However, the majority of the adverse events were non-study drug related events. No deaths were reported during the study.
DISCUSSION: Biphasic isophane insulin injection was well tolerated with no new safety concerns. It was found effective in post- marketing studies conducted in routine clinical settings when administered in DM patients in this study.
Methods: Articles published in the English language on the PubMed database that were relevant to surgical tourism and the complications of elective surgical procedures abroad were examined. Reference lists of articles identified were further scrutinized. The search terms used included combinations of 'surgery abroad', 'cosmetic surgery abroad', 'cosmetic surgery tourism', 'cosmetic surgery complications' and 'aesthetic tourism'.
Results: This article critically reviews the epidemiology of cosmetic surgical tourism and its associated economic factors. Surgical complications of selected procedures, including perioperative complications, are described. The implications for travel medicine practice are considered and recommendations for further research are proposed.
Conclusion: This narrative literature review focuses on the issues affecting travellers who obtain cosmetic surgical treatment overseas. There is a lack of focus in the travel medicine literature on the non-surgery-related morbidity of this special group of travellers. Original research exploring the motivation and pre-travel preparation, including the psychological counselling, of cosmetic surgical tourists is indicated.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a botanical-based Rosa E pigmentation serum in healthy fair skin female volunteers with wrinkles, skin tone, and pigmentation.
METHODS: This was a single-arm, open label study conducted in healthy Indian females; 18 subjects aged 30-55, having fair Caucasian-like skin with at least 2 dark skin pigments with facial wrinkles diagnosed by dermatologist were selected. Rosa E pigmentation serum was applied twice a day for 84 days. Effect was evaluated by (i) instrumental technique (spectrophotometer® 2600D), (ii) clinically by dermatologist regarding product efficacy (skin tone, antiwrinkle, pigmentation), and (iii) volunteers self-evaluation.
RESULTS: The L* value of spectrophotometer reading represents lightness in the skin pigment. Reduction in the pigment was reported from day 14, with significant reductions observed till day 84 compared with baseline. Significant (P < .0001) skin pigmentation lightening was seen on day 14 (1.11) vastly improving on day 84 (1.94) based on photographic assessments. The significant reduction in skin pigment was 76.85%, Felix von Luschan skin color score was 30.24% (P < .0001) with a 7.38-fold reduction in skin tone and 57% reduction in facial wrinkles at day 84 from baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: Rosa E pigmentation serum was found safe and effective in significant reduction in skin pigments, improvement of skin tone, and antiwrinkle properties instrumentally, clinically, and self-evaluation by volunteers. In these evaluations, best results were seen the longer the Rosa E was used.
DESIGN: We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Following a literature review and patient focus groups, an expert panel generated questionnaire items. Following a pilot study, item numbers were reduced. The final questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographics, perceived QoC and one open-ended question. Data was collected from patients (n = 531) discharged from hospitals across seven countries in South East Europe (languages: Turkish, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian). Reliability and validity of the measure were assessed.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare various factor models of patient-perceived QoC. Good model fit was demonstrated for a two-factor model: communication and interpersonal care, and hospital facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: The ORCAB (Improving quality and safety in the hospital: The link between organisational culture, burnout and quality of care) Patient QoC questionnaire has been collaboratively and exhaustively developed between healthcare professionals and patients. It enables patient QoC data to be assessed in the context of the IOM pillars of quality, considering both technical and interpersonal dimensions of care. It represents an important first step in including the patient perspective.