METHODS: Eleven participants were involved in this qualitative research which utilised the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach more renowned in health psychology research. All interviews conducted at their home. The interviews were recorded, typed verbatim, and the transcripts were analysed using NVivo software version 8.0.
RESULTS: The main barriers identified at the primary care level were 1) nondisclosure of their visual problems originated from their belated needs for better sight, delayed awareness of their visual status and social stigma and 2) patient-provider-related issues namely miscommunication and delayed referral. The first main theme explains their belief for not requiring surgery. This has led to their delayed awareness and impeded disclosure of their visual problems to family members or primary care providers. The second main theme reflects the provider-patient-related issues which retarded cataract detection and referral process required for earlier cataract extraction surgery.
CONCLUSION: Thus, the appropriate approach targeting these specific barriers at primary care level will be able to detect, motivate and assist patients for early uptake of cataract extraction surgery to improve their vision and prevent severe blindness.
METHODS: An observational study of children aged between 0-18 years receiving palliative care at 13 hospitals between 1st January and 31st December 2014 was carried out.
RESULTS: There were 315 patients analysed, 90 (28.6%) and 46 (14.6%) were neonates and adolescents respectively. The main ICD-10 diagnostic categories for all patients were identified to be 'Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities' 117 (37.1%), 'Diseases of nervous system' 76 (24.1%) and 'Neoplasms' 60 (19.0%). At referral 156 (50%) patients had holistic needs assessments. Patients with 'Diseases of nervous system' were assessed to have significantly more physical needs than the other two diagnostic categories. Majority of patients who knew of their diagnosis and prognosis were those with malignancy. Over a fifth of referrals were at their terminal admission. Of 144 who died, 111 (77.1%) had advanced care plans. There was bereavement follow-up in 98 (68.1%) patients.
CONCLUSION: Patients referred for palliative care have varied diagnoses and needs. To ensure all paediatricians are competent to deliver quality care to all children, further education and training initiatives is imperative.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted literature search in three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Clinical Key) on July 15th, 2020. The keywords were ("Head and Neck Mucosal Malignancy" OR "Head and Neck Cancer") AND ("Management" OR "Head and Neck Surgery") AND ("COVID-19" OR "Pandemic"). The inclusion criteria were cancer in adult patients, published from 2020 in English, and with available access to full text. The exclusion criteria were comments, letters, and case reports. The articles were critically appraised using the Centre of Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford and Duke University. The literature search strategy is illustrated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram.
RESULTS: A total of 150 articles were identified; 21 articles were gathered from Clinical Key, 33 from Cochrane, and 96 from Pubmed. After screening abstracts and reviewing the full text, the authors determined five articles met the inclusion criteria. There are several key points of head and neck cancer management in the COVID-19 pandemic. Head and neck cancer management is considered a high-risk procedure; the clinician should use proper personal protective equipment. Before operative treatment, all patients should undergo a PCR test 14 days before surgery. In diagnosing head and neck cancer, laryngoscopy should be considered carefully; and cytology should be preferred instead. Medically Necessary, Time-sensitive (MeNTS) score is recommended for risk stratification and surgery prioritization; it has three domains: procedure, disease, and patient. However, it is not specified to head and neck cancer; therefore, it should be combined with other references. Stanford University Head and Neck Surgery Division Department of Otolaryngology made surgery prioritization into three groups, urgent (should be operated immediately), can be postponed for 30 days, and can be postponed for 30- 90 days. Some urgent cases and should be operated on immediately include cancers involving the airways, decreased renal function, and metastases. For chemoradiation decision to delay or continue should refer to the goal of treatment, current oncologic status, and tolerance to radiation. In terms of patient's follow up, telephone consultation should be maximized.
CONCLUSION: MeNTS scoring combined with Guideline from Department of Otolaryngology at Stanford University prioritizing criteria can be helpful in decision making of stratifying Risk and prioritizing surgery in head and neck cancer management.
METHODS: Cross sectional study. Adult patients diagnosed with HIV infection and had at least one medical encounter in a primary healthcare setting during three years prior to diagnosis were included. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, patient characteristics at diagnosis, HIV-related conditions and whether they were subjected to risk assessment and offered HIV testing during the three years prior to HIV diagnosis.
RESULTS: 65 newly HIV-diagnosed patients (male: 92.3%; Malays: 52.4%; single: 66.7%; heterosexual: 41%; homosexual 24.6%; CD4 <350 at diagnosis: 63%). 93.8% were unaware of their HIV status at diagnosis. Up to 56.9% had presented with HIV-related conditions at a primary healthcare facility during the three years prior to diagnosis. Slightly more than half were had risk assessment done and only 33.8% were offered HIV-testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Missed opportunities for HIV-testing was unacceptably high with insufficient risk assessment and offering of HIV-testing. Risk assessment must be promoted and primary care physicians must be trained to recognize HIV-related conditions that will prompt them to offer HIVtesting.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain profile, accuracy and concordance rates of ovarian intraoperative consultation in Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya, a teaching hospital in Indonesia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study, using data from archives of intraoperative consultation reports in Dr. Soetomo General Hospital Surabaya within 2012-2016 period. There were 734 cases of ovarian intraoperative consultations, all then proceed to permanent sections. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity rates were calculated.
RESULTS: Overall accuracy was 89.5%. Sensitivity for benign, borderline and malignant cases were 98.49%, 71.19% and 84.01%, respectively. Specificity were 90.32%, 95.11% and 98.72%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Intraoperative consultation for ovarian tumours has a reliable diagnostic value in benign and malignant lesion, but lower value in borderline tumours.