Displaying publications 41 - 45 of 45 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Kandasamy G, Sivanandy P, Almaghaslah D, Almanasef M, Vasudevan R, Chinnadhurai M, et al.
    Int J Clin Pract, 2021 Sep;75(9):e14489.
    PMID: 34115424 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14489
    BACKGROUND: The substantial and increasing use of medications escalating the risk of harm globally. The serious medication errors in hospital and community settings resulting from patient injury and death. Hence, a cross-sectional study was aimed to analyse the prescribing and dispensing errors in the outpatient departments of a south Indian hospital.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the prescribing, and dispensing errors in outpatients who seek patient counseling at the tertiary care multispecialty hospital. The data were collected from various sources such as patient's prescriptions and dispensing records from the pharmacy.

    RESULTS: A total of 500 prescriptions were screened and identified 65.60% of prescriptions with at least any one type of medication errors. Out of 328 prescriptions, 96.04% were handwritten and 3.96% were computerised prescriptions. Among the 328 prescriptions with medication errors, 32.62% noticed prescribing errors, 37.80% with dispensing errors, and 29.58% with both prescribing and dispensing errors. Out of these 328 prescriptions, 74.09% prescriptions were found to have polypharmacy.

    DISCUSSION: Medication errors are serious problems in healthcare and can be a source of significant morbidity and mortality in healthcare settings. The present study showed that dispensing errors were the most common among the types of medication errors, in these particularly wrong directions were the most common types of errors.

    CONCLUSION: This study concludes that the overall prevalence of medication errors was around 80%, but there were no life-threatening events observed. A clinical pharmacist can play a major role in this situation appears to be a strong intervention and early detection and prevention of medication errors and thus can improve the quality of care to the patients.

  2. Balasingam M
    Int J Clin Pract, 2017 Sep;71(9).
    PMID: 28851081 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12989
    This is a medical kitty hawk moment. Drones are pilotless aircrafts that were initially used exclusively by the military but are now also used for various scientific purposes, public safety, and in commercial industries. The healthcare industry in particular can benefit from their technical capabilities and ease of use. Common drone applications in medicine include the provision disaster assessments when other means of access are severely restricted; delivering aid packages, medicines, vaccines, blood and other medical supplies to remote areas; providing safe transport of disease test samples and test kits in areas with high contagion; and potential for providing rapid access to automated external defibrillators for patients in cardiac arrest. Drones are also showing early potential to benefit geriatric medicine by providing mobility assistance to elderly populations using robot-like technology. Looking further to the future, drones with diagnostic imaging capabilities may have a role in assessing health in remote communities using telemedicine technology. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in the European Union are some examples of legislative bodies with regulatory authority over drone usage. These agencies oversee all technical, safety, security and administrative issues related to drones. It is important that drones continue to meet or exceed the requirements specified in each of these regulatory areas. The FAA is challenged with keeping pace legislatively with the rapid advances in drone technology. This relative lag has been perceived as slowing the proliferation of drone use. Despite these regulatory limitations, drones are showing significant potential for transforming healthcare and medicine in the 21st century.
  3. Low SL, Masdar A, Md Nor N, Mohd Azidin A, Low HJ, Mohamad Mahdi SN
    Int J Clin Pract, 2022;2022:5118362.
    PMID: 36474553 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5118362
    INTRODUCTION: ProSeal-Laryngeal Mask Airway™ (P-LMA™) is one of the commonly used laryngeal mask airways. Despite the proper insertion technique, suboptimal positioning and airway morbidity still occurs. This study explored the possibility of the operating table height position affecting successful P-LMA™ placement.

    METHODS: A total of 138 patients aged between 18 and 65 years old with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I or II status, who required general anaesthesia and had no contraindication towards the use of P-LMA™, were recruited. They were randomly positioned into three anatomical landmarks, which were umbilicus, lowest rib margin, and xiphoid. P-LMA™ was inserted following muscle paralysis, and the first successful placement was evaluated using positional and performance tests. Duration, ease of P-LMA™ insertion, and airway complications were compared.

    RESULTS: Demographic and airway features were comparable among all groups. The P-LMA™ placement success rate improved when the table height was positioned at the lowest rib margin (p=0.002). All three positions were comparable in terms of duration, ease of insertion, and airway morbidities.

    CONCLUSION: The lowest rib margin anatomical landmark can be used as a guide in achieving the optimal operating table height for successful P-LMA™ placement.

  4. Jamaleddin Surani SA, Budiman M, Azman M, Abdul Rahman R
    Int J Clin Pract, 2022;2022:4090444.
    PMID: 36458263 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4090444
    INTRODUCTION: Although uncommon, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) may impose fatal risk to the patients. We investigated the awareness of LAST and knowledge on local anaesthetics among our postgraduate trainees.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 134 postgraduate trainees from the departments of general surgery (Surgical), orthopaedic surgery (Ortho), otorhinolaryngology (ENT), obstetrics and gynaecology (OBGYN), as well as anaesthesiology and intensive care (Anaesth) were recruited. A validated questionnaire was used to assess awareness and knowledge. All participants attended a medical-education session and completed the questionnaire as preassessment and postassessment. Data were analysed, and comparisons between disciplines were conducted.

    RESULTS: The trainees' awareness of LAST was overall poor at preassessment which improved almost 6-folds at postassessment. Surprisingly, only 20 (45.5%) participants from the anaesthesiology group had awareness of LAST at preassessment, and none of the participants were from surgical, orthopaedic, and obstetrics and gynaecology departments. Preassessment scores were significantly higher in the anaesth group as compared to all other groups; with a difference in the average score for Anaesth vs Surgical of 3.46 (95%, CI:2.17, 4.74), Anaesth vs Ortho of 3.64 (95%, CI:2.64, 4.64), Anaesth vs ENT of 3.43 (95%, CI:2.20, 4.67), and Anaesth vs OBGYN of 6.93 (95%, CI:5.64, 8.21). However, there was no significant difference of awareness scores between all participants at postassessment scores.

    CONCLUSION: The overall level of awareness was poor. However, the implementation of an education session significantly improved the knowledge and awareness across all disciplines.

  5. Manoharan S, Ying LY
    Int J Clin Pract, 2023;2023:1068000.
    PMID: 36793928 DOI: 10.1155/2023/1068000
    Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation in acute-phase of COVID-19 disease was recently discovered but it is not clear in terms of degree of mortality caused, and this was the aim of the current study. Six databases and three non-databases were thoroughly searched, independently. The articles related to non-human study (abstract, in vitro, in vivo, in silico, case study, poster, and review articles) were excluded for main analysis. Four articles related to mortality linked to EBV reactivation were systematically identified and included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Based on proportional meta-analysis of 4 studies, 34.3% or 0.343 (95% CI: 0.189-0.516; I 2 = 74.6) mortality related to EBV reactivation was identified. To address high heterogeneity, subgroup meta-analysis was carried out. Based on subgroup analysis, 26.6% or 0.266 (95% CI: 0.191-0.348; I 2 = 0) with no heterogeneity was identified. Interestingly, in comparative meta-analysis, EBV(-)/SARS-CoV-2(+) patients had statistically lesser mortality (9.9%) than EBV(+)/SARS-CoV-2(+) patients (23.6%) where RR = 2.31 (95% CI: 1.34-3.99; p = 0.003; I 2 = 6%). This finding is equivalent to the absolute mortality effect of 130 more per 1000 COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 34-296). Furthermore, based on statistical analysis, D-dimer was not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05) between the groups although studies have shown that D-dimer was statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) between these groups. Based on the inclusion and analysis of low risk of bias and high quality of articles graded with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), when COVID-19 patients' health state is gradually worsening, EBV reactivation needs to be suspected because EBV reactivation is a possible marker for COVID-19 disease severity.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links