AIM: To determine the range of physical assessment skills practised by critical care nurses and their adoption factors.
STUDY DESIGN: This study uses a cross-sectional survey design. A self-administered questionnaire evaluating 40 physical assessment skills was conducted with 133 staff nurses (response rate: 96.4%) in three critical care units at a Malaysian government hospital between November 2019 and January 2020.
RESULTS: Most nurses applied 32 (80%) skills during every working shift, involving the vital signs and all body systems except the gastrointestinal system. Five skills (12.5%) were occasionally applied, while three skills (7.5%) were rarely applied or not part of most nurses' clinical practice. About 20% of the nurses did not routinely check the respiration rate. Medical and surgical intensive care unit nurses (U = 1129, p
METHODS: One hundred and ninety medical doctors and nurses, who were registered with the Saudi Commission for Health Specialities, were selected to participate in this cross-sectional study using a simple sampling technique. Their KAP of hand hygiene was assessed using a self-structured questionnaire and the collected data was analysed using IBM® SPSS® version 26.0.
RESULTS: Of the 190 healthcare workers, 74.7% were nurses and 25.3% were medical doctors. Among the participants, 53.7% (102) had good knowledge of hand hygiene, 51.6% (98) had positive attitudes towards hand hygiene and 55.8% (106) practised satisfactory hand hygiene. Bachelor education level (adjusted OR = 2.736; 95% CI = 1.101, 6.799; P = 0.030), postgraduate education level (adjusted OR = 6.256; 95% CI = 2.171, 18.028; P = 0.001), poor knowledge (adjusted OR =2.575; 95% CI = 1.263, 5.246; P = 0.009) and negative attitude (adjusted OR = 4.702; 95% CI = 1.263, 5.246; P < 0.001) were the significant predictor variables of unsatisfactory hand hygiene practice among healthcare workers.
CONCLUSION: The performance of hand hygiene among healthcare workers is still far less than optimal, particularly in settings like oncology units. Effective programmes are needed to increase their awareness of hand hygiene KAP, while strict guidelines are needed to reduce nosocomial infections.
METHODS: RNA was isolated from peripheral whole blood samples (2 x 10 ml) collected from NPC patients/controls (EDTA vacutainer). Gene expression patterns from 99 samples (66 NPC; 33 controls) were assessed using the Affymetrix array. We also collected expression data from 447 patients with other cancers (201 patients) and non-cancer conditions (246 patients). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to obtain biomarker signatures differentiating NPC samples from controls and other diseases. Differences were also analysed within a subset (n=28) of a pre-intervention case cohort of patients whom we followed post-treatment.
RESULTS: A blood-based gene expression signature composed of three genes - LDLRAP1, PHF20, and LUC7L3 - is able to differentiate NPC from various other diseases and from unaffected controls with significant accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of over 0.90). By subdividing our NPC cohort according to the degree of patient response to treatment we have been able to identify a blood gene signature that may be able to guide the selection of treatment.
CONCLUSION: We have identified a blood-based gene signature that accurately distinguished NPC patients from controls and from patients with other diseases. The genes in the signature, LDLRAP1, PHF20, and LUC7L3, are known to be involved in carcinoma of the head and neck, tumour-associated antigens, and/or cellular signalling. We have also identified blood-based biomarkers that are (potentially) able to predict those patients who are more likely to respond to treatment for NPC. These findings have significant clinical implications for optimizing NPC therapy.
METHODS: The predictive eight biomarker set is derived from prospective observational clinical trials, representing 280 treatments with Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, Durvalumab, Nivolumab, and Avelumab in a broad range of indications: melanoma, lung, hepatocellular, renal, breast, bladder, colon, head and neck, bone, brain, lymphoma, prostate, vulvar, and cervical cancers.
RESULTS: The 3D genomic eight biomarker panel for response to immune checkpoint therapy achieved a high accuracy of 85%, sensitivity of 93%, and specificity of 82%.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a 3D genomic approach can be used to develop a predictive clinical assay for response to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition in cancer patients.
METHODS: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning.
RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83.
CONCLUSION: Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.
METHODS: The 62-item questionnaire was distributed electronically via email. The questions covered five domains: (1) structure of the IRD service and registry/database; (2) genotyping practices; (3) genetic counselling; (4) deep phenotyping practices; (5) low-vision rehabilitation services.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 36 of 45 centres in twelve countries and regions in APAC. Among these centres, 42 % reported managing more than 1000 patients. Notably, 39 % of centres lack an IRD database or registry, and 44 % of centres have tested less than one-quarter of their IRD patients. The majority of centres (67 %) do not have genetic counsellors. While there was consistency in the imaging-based investigations, there was marked heterogeneity for functional testing using electrophysiology and formal perimetry. Only 34 % of centres confirmed the availability of access to low-vision assistive devices.
CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals several critical gaps in managing IRDs in the APAC region. These include the lack of IRD database/registry in one-third of centres, a substantial proportion of patients remaining genetically undiagnosed, and limited availability of genetic counsellors. The findings also underscore a need to harmonise investigations for evaluating retinal function and identify areas for improvement in the provision of low-vision rehabilitation services.
METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.
RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.
CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.
DESIGN: Multi-national, multi-center collaborative network.
METHODS: The Research Standing Committee of the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology and the Asia-Pacific Society of Eye Genetics fostered this research collaboration, which brings together renowned institutions and experts for inherited eye diseases in the Asia-Pacific region. The immediate priority of the network will be inherited retinal diseases (IRDs), where there is a lack of detailed characterization of these conditions and in the number of established registries.
RESULTS: The network comprises 55 members from 35 centers, spanning 12 countries and regions, including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. The steering committee comprises ophthalmologists with experience in consortia for eye diseases in the Asia-Pacific region, leading ophthalmologists and vision scientists in the field of IRDs internationally, and ophthalmic geneticists.
CONCLUSIONS: The Asia Pacific Inherited Eye Disease (APIED) network aims to (1) improve genotyping capabilities and expertise to increase early and accurate genetic diagnosis of IRDs, (2) harmonise deep phenotyping practices and utilization of ontological terms, and (3) establish high-quality, multi-user, federated disease registries that will facilitate patient care, genetic counseling, and research of IRDs regionally and internationally.