METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 450 nurses from 37 wards in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Nurses on shift duty were recruited by convenience sampling from the Medical, Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Orthopaedic and Paediatric wards. Using a validated questionnaire (Handover Evaluation Scale), nurses self-rated their perceptions using a 7-point scale and provided open-ended responses to the strengths and challenges that they faced. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done while open-ended questions were summarised based on key themes.
RESULTS: A total of 414 nurses completed the survey (92.0% response rate). Nurses had an overall mean (SD) perception score of 5.01 (SD 0.56). They perceived good interaction and support during handover and on the quality of information that they received, with mean scores of 5.54 (SD 0.79) and 5.19 (SD 0.69), respectively. There was an association between the departments where the nurses worked and their overall perceptions on nursing handover (p<0.001). Interruptions being the most common theme emerged from the open-ended section.
CONCLUSION: Despite having substantial interaction and support amongst nurses, opportunities for improvements were noted. Improvements in the quality of handover information and reducing interruptions should be the main emphases as these were perceived to be essential in the current handover practices by nurses.
Materials and Methods: Thorough search of articles and recommendations were done to look into the characteristics of the virus in terms of transmission and risks during surgery. Smoke plume characteristics, composition and risk of viral transmission were also studied. Search includes The WHO Library, Cochrane Library and electronic databases (PubMed, Google scholar and Science Direct).
Conclusion: We concluded that there is no scientific basis of shunning laparoscopic approach in surgical intervention. Ultimately, the guiding principles would be of reducing the anesthetic and surgical duration, the availability of full protective gear for HCWs during the surgery and the status of the patient. It is mandatory for viral swab tests to be done within the shortest window period possible, for all cases planned for surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.
Methods: This is a retrospective cohort review of data obtained from the Malaysian National Obstetrics and Gynaecology Registry between the year 2010 and year 2012. All women in their first pregnancy with a booking BMI in their first trimester were included in this study. The association between BMI classifications as defined by the WHO cut-offs and the potential public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations towards adverse obstetric outcomes was compared.
Results: A total of 88,837 pregnant women were included in this study. We noted that the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes was significantly higher using the public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations even among the overweight group as the risk of stillbirths was (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0,1.4), shoulder dystocia (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2,2.9), foetal macrosomia (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6,2.0), caesarean section (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.8,2.0) and assisted conception (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6,2.1).
Conclusion: A specifically lower BMI references based on the potential public health action points for BMI classifications were a more sensitive predictor of adverse obstetric outcomes, and we recommend the use of these references in pregnancy especially among Asian population.