METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2019: ScienceDirect, PubMed, and EMBASE. The report was made in accordance with the principles of PRISMA guidelines. The search terms used were related to drones including unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and unmanned aerial system (UAS), and related to obstetric/maternal including obstetric emergencies and postpartum hemorrhage. Studies were selected if the intervention used were drones, and if any direct or indirect maternal health indicators were reported. Meta-analysis was not done throughout the study in view of the anticipated heterogeneity of each study.
RESULTS: Our initial search yielded a total of 244 relevant publications, from which 236 were carried forward for a title and abstract screening. After careful examination, only two were included for systematic synthesis. Among the reasons for exclusion were irrelevance to maternal health purpose, and irrelevance to drone applications in healthcare. An updated search yielded one additional study that was also included. Overall, two studies assessed drones for blood products delivery, and one study used drones to transport blood samples.
CONCLUSION: A significant deficiency was found in the number of reported studies analyzing mode of medical products transportation and adaptation of drones in maternal healthcare. Future drone research framework should focus on maternal healthcare-specific drone applications in order to reap benefits in this area.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional online study using a validated questionnaire was distributed to doctors (MD), assistant medical officers (AMO), and staff nurses (SN) at an urban tertiary Emergency Department. It comprised of 40 knowledge and 10 confidence-level questions related to resuscitation and airway management steps.
RESULTS: A total of 135 from 167 eligible EHCW were enrolled. 68.9% (n = 93) had high knowledge while 53.3% (n = 72) possessed high confidence level. Overall knowledge mean score was 32.96/40 (SD = 3.63) between MD (33.88±3.09), AMO (32.28±4.03), and SN (32.00±3.60), P= 0.025. EHCWs with a length of service (LOS) between 4-10 years had the highest knowledge compared to those with LOS <4-year (33.71±3.39 versus 31.21±3.19 P = 0.002). Airway-related knowledge was significantly different between the designations and LOS (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). Overall, EHCW confidence level against LOS showed significant difference [F (2, 132) = 5.46, P = 0.005] with longer LOS showing better confidence. MD showed the highest confidence compared to AMO and SN (3.67±0.69, 3.53±0.68, 3.26±0.64) P = 0.049. The majority EHCW were confident in performing high-quality chest-compression, and handling of Personal Protective Equipment but less than half were confident in resuscitating, leading the resuscitation, managing the airway or being successful in first intubation attempt.
CONCLUSIONS: EHCW possessed good knowledge in airway and resuscitation of COVID-19 patients, but differed between designations and LOS. A longer LOS was associated with better confidence, but there were some aspects in airway management and resuscitation that needed improvement.
METHODS: This study aimed to explore the acceptance of medical delivery drones among medical practitioners as well as the public community in Malaysia using a knowledge, attitude, and perception (KAP) model and statistical analysis to decrease uncertainty. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of the results were performed in SPSS.
RESULTS: A total of 639 respondents took part in the survey, of which 557 complete responses were finally analyzed. The results showed that the overall acceptance rate for medical delivery drones was positive. The acceptance rate was significantly correlated with knowledge, attitude, and perception scores but not with sociodemographic factors.
DISCUSSION: Raising awareness and educating the medical as well as public communities regarding the potential role and benefits of drones are therefore important in garnering support for drone usage for medical purposes.