METHODS: A cross-sectional randomized intervention study over 12 months' duration was conducted in university hospital simulation lab. ACLS-certified medical doctors were assigned to run 2 standardized simulated resuscitation code as RTL from a head-end position (HEP) and leg-end position (LEP). They were evaluated on leadership qualities including situational attentiveness (SA), errors detection (ED), and decision making (DM) using a standardized validated resuscitation-code-checklist (RCC). Performance was assessed live by 2 independent raters and was simultaneously recorded. RTL self-perceived performance was compared to measured performance.
RESULTS: Thirty-four participants completed the study. Mean marks for SA were 3.74 (SD ± 0.96) at HEP and 3.54 (SD ± 0.92) at LEP, P = .48. Mean marks for ED were 2.43 (SD ± 1.24) at HEP and 2.21 (SD ± 1.14) at LEP, P = .40. Mean marks for DM were 4.53 (SD ± 0.98) at HEP and 4.47 (SD ± 0.73) at LEP, P = .70. The mean total marks were 10.69 (SD ± 1.82) versus 10.22 (SD ± 1.93) at HEP and LEP respectively, P = .29 which shows no significance difference in all parameters. Twenty-four participants (71%) preferred LEP for the following reasons, better visualization (75% of participants); more room for movement (12.5% of participants); and better communication (12.5% of participants). RTL's perceived performance did not correlate with actual performance CONCLUSION:: The physical position either HEP or LEP appears to have no influence on performance of RTL in simulated cardiac resuscitation. RTL should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each position.
METHODS: A steering group was formed to review the existing guideline and propose amendments to the 17-item checklist. A Delphi consensus exercise was utilised to determine agreement across a list of proposed modifications to the STROCSS 2017 guideline. An expert panel of 46 surgeons were invited to assess the proposed updates via Google Forms.
RESULTS: The response rate was 91% (n = 42/46). High agreement was reached across all the items and the guideline was finalised in the first round. The checklist maintained 17-items, with modifications primarily considered to improve content and readability.
CONCLUSIONS: The STROCSS 2019 guideline is hereby presented as a considered update to improve reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.
METHODS: This is a nationwide retrospective audit on the documentation of Dabigatran Prescribing and Dispensing Checklist for a period of two years from January 2013 till December 2014. Data from these Dabigatran Checklists (indication, dose, duration, renal function and adverse drug reactions encountered) were extracted by the pharmacist at MOH healthcare facilities.
RESULTS: A total of 52 out of 56 (92.9%) of MOH facilities complied to usage of checklist at their centres involving a total of 582 patients of which 569 (97.7%) patients were initiated on dabigatran for the approved indications. The recommended dose of dabigatran was used correctly in 501 (99.6%) of patients. Reason for switching to DOACs use was only documented in 76.7% (131/171) of patients. The most common reason for switching from warfarin was poor INR control (n=39), history of bleeding/overwarfarinisation (n=22) and unable to attend regular INR clinic (n=21). There were 75 cases of adverse events reported. The most common adverse event reported were abdominal discomfort (n=10) followed by gum bleeding (n=9) and dizziness (n=5).
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance to the dabigatran check list was high with 70% of patients prescribed the appropriate dosing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p checklist by the journal editors and authors will enhance the reporting quality of abstracts.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting.
RESULTS: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one "absent" information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8-19% "perfect" information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50-79% "perfect") were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention).
CONCLUSION: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists.
Settings and Design: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a Neurological Centre at Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia, from January 2016 to December 2016.
Subjects and Methods: A total of 209 patients; 133 males and 76 females, in the age range of 16-84 years, were randomly recruited for this study. All the selected patients were subjected to the checklist for diagnosis of PCS as per International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th edition classification at a 2-week interval.
Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistic and Multivariable Logistic Regression Model were used for frequency and percentage analyses of categorical variables, using SPSS version 23.0.
Results: Only 20 patients were identified with PCS. There were more female (70%) patients with PCS than the male (30%) patients. The prevalence of PCS for 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months since injuries were 9.6%, 8.1%, and 8.1% respectively. Majority (80%) of the patients were found to have PCS due to road traffic accidents, while the remaining were attributed to assault (15%), and falls (5%). Among the sample population, 25% were smokers, while 10% of them had either skull fracture or premorbidity.
Conclusion: Less than 10% of patients with MTBI had PCS after 6 months' following trauma. None of the variables tested were significant factors for the development of PCS symptoms.
METHOD: Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.
RESULTS: Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.
CONCLUSION: A metacognitive checklist aimed to check cognitive errors may be a useful tool that can be implemented in the real clinical setting.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of printed AMS recommendations on early IV-PO antibiotics switch practice in district hospitals.
Methods: This study was an interventional study conducted in medical wards of eight Sarawak district hospitals from May to August 2015. In pre-intervention phase, pharmacists performed the conventional practice of reviewing medication charts and verbally informed the prescribers on eligible IV-PO switches. In post-intervention phase, pharmacists attached printed checklist which contained IV-PO switch criteria to patients' medical notes on the day patients were eligible for the switch. Stickers of IV-PO switch were applied to the antibiotic prescription to serve as reminders.
Results: 79 and 77 courses of antibiotics were studied in the pre-intervention phase and post-intervention phase respectively. Timeliness of switch was improved by 1.63 days in the post-intervention phase (95%CI 1.26:2.00 days, p<0.001). Mean duration of IV antibiotics in the post-intervention phase was shorter than pre-intervention phase (2.81 days (SD=1.77) vs 4.05 days (SD=2.81), p<0.001). The proportion of IV-PO switches that were only performed upon discharge reduced significantly in the post-intervention phase (31.2% vs 82.3%, p<0.001). Length of hospital stay in the post-intervention phase was shortened by 1.44 days (p<0.001). Median antibiotic cost savings increased significantly in the post-intervention phase compared to the pre-intervention phase [MYR21.96 (IQR=23.23) vs MYR13.10 (IQR=53.76); p=0.025)].
Conclusions: Pharmacist initiated printed AMS recommendations are successful in improving the timeliness of IV-PO switch, reducing the duration of IV, reducing the length of hospitalisation, and increasing antibiotic cost savings.