MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-post study (interventional study design) was conducted on paramedic students. Our study period was 6 months which was divided into Phases I, II, and III. For administrative purpose, we included all paramedical students, and our sample size was 119. The baseline assessment of knowledge and attitude of paramedic students was done by a pretested questionnaire (Observation 1) with having a baseline scoring. After that, intervention Phase 1 was implemented, and later, end line observation (Observation 2) was made. Changes in knowledge and attitude were observed by the score difference (Observation 2-Observation 1). Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the mean of cumulative score was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We applied Mann-Whitney U-test for finding associations between dependent variables with an independent variable using SPSS version 22 (IBM, Chicago, USA) software.
RESULTS: Our baseline results showed that most of our participants had average knowledge (54.6%), followed by poor knowledge (24.4%). Approximately one-fifth (21.0%) of the participants had good knowledge regarding disaster preparedness. A significant improvement was observed in cumulative score (P < 0.005). A significant difference was observed in knowledge and attitude with respect to age and courses (P < 0.05). Forty percent of the students responded that they would like to get trained by that mock drill, and 26.1% were interested in disaster preparedness workshops in the future.
CONCLUSION: Our present study results indicate that the overall knowledge and attitude level of the students was average and required improvement. A similar result was reported in some studies conducted globally for the same purpose. All of our students perceived that training for disaster preparedness is necessary for all health facilities, and it is important to have an emergency plan and disaster management committee. Regarding training methods, most of our students liked our interactive audiovisual method. However, their preferred methods were mock drill and workshops. It can be arranged in the future for them.
METHODS: An activity-based microcosting approach was applied to estimate the unit cost of events from the hospital's perspective. First, activities and resources that were involved in each cost center were identified and valued against a suitable form of unit. Thereafter, the mean cost of each resource per event was calculated by dividing the product of the quantity of the resource used and the unit cost of the resource by the number of events. The mean cost per event was the sum of the cost of resources for all cost centers involved. The costs were expressed in 2014 US dollars ($) and Malaysian Ringgit (RM).
RESULTS: Data were collected from 15 maintenance, 20 acute exacerbation, and 50 hospitalization events. The mean (±SD) cost of maintenance management was $48.04 (±10.10); RM154.68 (±32.52). The cost of acute exacerbation management in the Emergency Department was $13.50 (±2.21), RM43.46 (±7.10); and in the medical ward, the cost was $552.13 (±303.41), RM1777.86 (±976.98), per hospitalization event.
CONCLUSION: The microcosting of management of asthma-related events provides more accurate estimates that could be used in local economic studies. However, its possible limited generalizability to other types of health care settings in Malaysia needs to be kept in mind.
METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study analysed data on consecutive STEMI patients who received thrombolytic therapy from May 2019 to December 2020 (20 months) in a non-PCI capable tertiary hospital. Total population sampling was used in this study. We compared all patients' characteristics and outcomes ten months before and during the pandemic. Regression models were used to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on door-to-needle time (DNT), mortality, bleeding events, and the number of overnight stays.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We analysed 323 patients with a mean age of 52.9 ± 12.9 years and were predominantly male (n = 280, 88.9%). There was a 12.5% reduction in thrombolysis performed during the pandemic. No significant difference in timing from symptoms onset to thrombolysis and DNT was observed. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.02-4.00, p = 0.044). Bleeding events post thrombolysis remained stable and there was no significant difference in the number of overnight stays during the pandemic.
CONCLUSION: STEMI thrombolysis cases were reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an inverse increase in mortality despite the preserved Emergency Department performance in timely thrombolysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed retrospective data of chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM from 1st June 2020 till 31st January 2021 based on the patient's history, ECG findings, risk factors, age and troponin level. The patients were stratified as low risk (MHS and HEAR score of 0-3), intermediate risk (MHS and HEAR score of 4-6), and high risk (MHS of 7-10 and HEAR score of 7-8). The association of the MHS and HEAR score with MACE at 6 weeks' time was evaluated using simple logistic regression.
RESULTS: This study included 147 patients in the MHS analysis and 71 patients in HEAR score analysis. The incident rate of MACE in low, intermediate and high risk was 0%,16.3%, and 34.7%, in the MHS group, and 0%, 3.22%, and 6.66% in HEAR score group. The mean difference between MACE and non-MACE in MHS and HEAR score groups was -2.29 (CI: -3.13,1.44, p<0.001) and -2.51(CI: -5.23, 0.21, p=0.070), respectively. There was no significant association between the incidence rate of MACE with modified HEART score (MHS) and HEAR score groups (p>0.95).
CONCLUSION: HEAR score is not feasible to be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM in comparison to MHS. Further studies are required to validate the results.