METHODS: An open-label study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of 1.5 mcg/kg intranasal fentanyl to 2 mg/kg intravenous tramadol (fentanyl + tramadol arm, n = 10) as compared to the administration of 2 mg/kg intravenous tramadol alone (tramadol-only arm, n = 10) in adult patients with moderate to severe pain due to acute musculoskeletal injuries.
RESULTS: When analysed using the independent t-test, the difference between the mean visual analogue scale scores pre-intervention and ten minutes post-intervention was 29.8 ± 8.4 mm in the fentanyl + tramadol arm and 19.6 ± 9.7 mm in the tramadol-only arm (t[18] = 2.515, p = 0.022, 95% confidence interval 1.68-18.72 mm). A statistically significant, albeit transient, reduction in the ten-minute post-intervention mean arterial pressure was noted in the fentanyl + tramadol arm as compared to the tramadol-only arm (13.35 mmHg vs. 7.65 mmHg; using Mann-Whitney U test with U-value 21.5, p = 0.029, r = 0.48). There was a higher incidence of transient dizziness ten minutes after intervention among the patients in the fentanyl + tramadol arm.
CONCLUSION: Although effective, intranasal fentanyl may not be appropriate for routine use in adult patients, as it could result in a significant reduction in blood pressure.
AIMS: We conducted a voluntary, anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey of a group of 164 final year medical students and 60 final year dental students to unravel their attitudes towards performing bystander CPR.
METHODS: Using a 4-point Likert scale of "definitely yes," "probably yes," "probably no," and "definitely no," the students were asked to rate their willingness to perform bystander CPR under three categories: chest compressions with mouth-to-mouth ventilation (CC + MMV), chest compressions with mask-to-mouth ventilation (CC + PMV), and chest compressions only (CC). Under each category, the students were given ten hypothetical victim scenarios. Categorical data analysis was done using the McNemar test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test where appropriate. For selected analysis, "definitely yes" and "probably yes" were recoded as a "positive response."
RESULTS: Generally, we found that only 51.4% of the medical and 45.5% of the dental students are willing to perform bystander CPR. When analyzed under different hypothetical scenarios, we found that, except for the scenario where the victim is their own family member, all other scenarios showed a dismally low rate of positive responses in the category of CC + MMV, but their willingness was significantly improved under the CC + PMV and CC categories.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that there are unique sociocultural factors that contribute to the reluctance of our students to perform CC + MMV.
METHODS: This questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part A is to evaluate the clinicians' awareness towards cognitive errors in clinical decision making while Part B is to evaluate their perception towards specific cognitive errors. Content validation for both parts was first determined followed by construct validation for Part A. Construct validation for Part B was not determined as the responses were set in a dichotomous format.
RESULTS: For content validation, all items in both Part A and Part B were rated as "excellent" in terms of their relevance in clinical settings. For construct validation using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for Part A, a two-factor model with total variance extraction of 60% was determined. Two items were deleted. Then, the EFA was repeated showing that all factor loadings are above the cut-off value of >0.5. The Cronbach's alpha for both factors are above 0.6.
CONCLUSION: The CATChES questionnaire tool is a valid questionnaire tool aimed to evaluate the awareness among clinicians toward cognitive errors in clinical decision making.
METHODS: We performed a randomized, open-label study from March until August 2011 to compare the bronchodilatory effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol in acute exacerbation of mild to moderate asthmatic attack in an emergency department. Initial objective parameters measured include the oxygen saturation, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. During clinical reassessment, subjective parameters [i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-point Likert scale of breathlessness] and the second reading of the objective parameters were measured. For the 5-point Likert scale, the patients were asked to describe their symptom relief as 1, much worse; 2, a little worse; 3, no change; 4, a little better; 5, much better.
RESULTS: Out of the total of 32 patients enrolled, 17 patients (53%) were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and 15 (47%) to receive Symbicort®. For both treatment arms, by using paired t- and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, it was shown that there were statistically significant improvements in oxygen saturation, PEFR and respiratory rate within the individual treatment groups (pre- vs. post-treatment). Comparing the effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol, the average improvement of oxygen saturation was 1% in both treatment arms (p = 0.464), PEFR 78.67 l/min vs. 89.41 l/min, respectively (p = 0.507), and respiratory rate 2/min vs. 2/min (p = 0.890). For subjective evaluation, all patients reported improvement in the VAS (average 2.45 cm vs. 2.20 cm), respectively (p = 0.765). All patients in both treatment arms reported either "a little better" or "much better" on the 5-point Likert scale, with none reporting "no change" or getting worse.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there is no statistical difference between using Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol as the reliever for the first 15 min post-intervention.
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.
METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.
RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.
METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.
RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.
METHODS: A qualitative design, using semi-structured in-depth interviews with 10 young women with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy, was conducted between June to December 2022.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data, and five main themes were identified: (1) psychological and emotional well-being (altered self-esteem and femininity, impact on sexual life and relationships, psychological distress associated with mastectomy, mirror trauma and the need for psychological care); (2) body image and breast reconstruction (the dilemma over reconstruction decision, body image and clothing and lack of access to prosthetic information/services); (3) social and interpersonal factors (lack of marriage choices and society's view and stigma); (4) coping mechanisms with mastectomy effects (family support; faith in god almighty; comparing their situation to others and use of prosthetics) and (5) physical health and functioning (physical effects on mobility and function).
CONCLUSION: Mastectomy has significant physical, emotional, and social consequences on young women with breast cancer, particularly in crisis-affected Syria where access to breast reconstruction is limited. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to understand these impacts, to raise awareness, encourage early detection, and promote less aggressive treatments to improve women's quality of life.
METHODS: This study was designed in the form of cross-sectional analysis, in which, cancer survivors were recruited from the Sarawak General Hospital, the largest tertiary and referral public hospital in Sarawak. To capture the financial toxicity of the cancer survivors, the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument in its validated form was adopted. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to determine the relationship between financial toxicity (FT) and its predictors.
RESULTS: The median age of the 461 cancer survivors was 56 while the median score of COST was 22.0. Besides, finding from multivariable logistic regression revealed that low income households (OR: 6.893, 95% CI, 3.109-15.281) were susceptible to higher risk of financial toxicity, while elderly survivors above 50 years old reported a lower risk in financial toxicity. Also, survivors with secondary schooling (OR:0.240; 95%CI, 0.110-0.519) and above [College or university (OR: 0.242; 95% CI, 0.090-0.646)] suffer a lower risk of FT.
CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity was found to be associated with survivors age, household income and educational level. In the context of cancer treatment within public health facility, younger survivors, households from B40 group and individual with educational attainment below the first level schooling in the Malaysian system of education are prone to greater financial toxicity. Therefore, it is crucial for healthcare policymakers and clinicians to deliberate the plausible risk of financial toxicity borne by the patient amidst the treatment process.
METHODS: A single-center prospective randomised controlled trial involving 30 doctors from Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 to compare the effectiveness of BL versus F2FL for emergency airway management training. Participants in the BL arm were given a period of 12 days to go through the online materials in a learning management system while those in the F2FL arm attended a-day of face-to-face lectures (8 h). Participants from both arms then attended a day of hands-on session consisting of simulation skills training with airway manikins. Pre- and post-tests in knowledge and practical skills were administered. E-learning experience and the perception towards BL among participants in the BL arm were also assessed.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in post-test scores as compared to pre-test scores were noted for participants in both BL and F2FL arms for knowledge, practical, and total scores. The degree of increment between the BL group and the F2FL arms for all categories were not significantly different (total scores: 35 marks, inter-quartile range (IQR) 15.0 - 41.0 vs. 31 marks, IQR 24.0 - 41.0, p = 0.690; theory scores: 18 marks, IQR 9 - 24 vs. 19 marks, IQR 15 - 20, p = 0.992; practical scores: 11 marks, IQR 5 -18 vs. 10 marks, IQR 9 - 20, p = 0.461 respectively). The overall perception towards BL was positive.
CONCLUSIONS: Blended learning is as effective as face-to-face learning for emergency airway management training of junior doctors, suggesting that blended learning may be a feasible alternative to face-to-face learning for such skill training in emergency departments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Malaysian National Medical Research NMRR-16-696-30190 . Registered 28 April 2016.