持续质量改进在体检科护理质量管理中的应用效果探讨

目的探究持续质量改进在体检科护理质量管理中的应用效果。方法该次将该院在2018年7-12月的体检者200名作为研究的对象,视为对照阶段,采取常规护理管理方法;将该院2019年1-6月的体检者200名作为观察阶段对象,在护理管理工作中采取持续质量改进管理模式,进一步对比两个阶段患者对于体检科工作质量的评分。结果在体检工作质量、服务态度、体检满意度这3个模块,观察阶段评分对照阶段比较均明显更高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论持续质量改进应用于体检科护理质量管理中,可有效提升体检服务品质,值得推广应用。     

应用精细化管理提高GMP模拟车间实训课教学质量

目的通过对GMP模拟车间实训课学生评教数据分析,探讨精细化管理对其教学质量的影响,从而提高GMP模拟车间实训课教学质量。方法通过对管理前后学生教学质量评价进行对比,选取最适合GMP模拟车间的管理方法。结果采取精细化管理后,学生教学质量评价从35.71%提高到96.42%。结论对GMP模拟车间精细化管理能够有效提高该课程的教学质量,给社会带来更大的经济效益和社会效益。     

Accuracy of prehospital triage systems for mass casualty incidents in trauma register studies - A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

BackgroundPrioritising patients in mass casualty incidents (MCI) can be extremely difficult. Therefore, triage systems are important in every emergency medical service. This study reviews the accuracy of primary triage systems for MCI in trauma register studies.MethodsWe registered a protocol at PROSPERO ID: CRD42018115438. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinical Trials, Google Scholar, and reference lists for eligible studies. We included studies that both examined a primary triage system for MCI in trauma registers and provided sensitivity and specificity for critically injured vs non-critically injured as results. We excluded studies that used paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear MCIs populations or triage systems. Finally, we calculated intra-study relative sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio for each triage system.ResultsTriage Sieve (TS) significantly underperformed in relative diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) when compared to START and CareFlight (CF) (START vs TS: 19.85 vs 13.23 (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 23.72 vs 12.83 (p<0.0001)). There was no significant difference in DOR between TS and Military Sieve (MS) (p<0.710). Compared to START, MS and CF TS had significantly higher relative specificity (START vs TS: 93.6% vs 96.1% (p=0.047)│CF vs TS: 96% vs 95.3% (p=0.0006)│MS vs TS: 94% vs 88.3% (p=0.0002)) and lower relative sensitivity (START vs TS: 57.8% vs 34.8% (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 53.9% vs 34.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs TS: 51.9% vs 35.2% p<0.0001)).CF had significantly better relative DOR than START (CF vs START: 23.56 vs 27.79 (p=0.043)). MS had significantly better relative sensitivity than CF and START (MS vs CF: 49.5% vs 38.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs START: 49.4% vs 43.9% (p=0.01)). In contrast, CF had significantly better relative specificity than MS (MS vs CF: 91.3% vs 93.3% (p<0.0001)). The remaining comparisons did not yield any significant differences.ConclusionAs the included studies were at risk of bias and had heterogenic characteristics, our results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our results point towards inferior accuracy of Triage Sieve compared to START and CareFlight, and less firmly point towards superior accuracy of Military Sieve compared to START, CareFlight and Triage Sieve     

(Technically) Difficult colonoscope insertion – Tips and tricks

Cecal intubation is a critical aspect of effective, complete colonoscopy. Difficult colonoscopy is most often considered as one in which it is challenging or impossible to reach the cecum. It may be a common occurrence due to patient and/or endoscopist factors. Incomplete colonoscopies should be avoided, since patients in this context present an important prevalence of lesions that escape examination. The approach to successful cecal intubation should depend on characterization of the problem as redundant colon or difficult sigmoid colon. Most patients with a prior incomplete colonoscopy can be colonoscoped successfully, if careful attention is paid to technique, using a variety of scopes, colonoscopy methods and additional equipment. Sufficient time should be allotted to make the attempt.