1,720,969 research outputs found
Healthcare Waste-A Serious Problem for Global Health
Full text link: Healthcare waste (HCW) is generated in different healthcare facilities (HCFs), such as hospitals, laboratories, veterinary clinics, research centres and nursing homes. It has been assessed that the majority of medical waste does not pose a risk to humans. It is estimated that 15% of the total amount of produced HCW is hazardous and can be infectious, toxic or radioactive. Hazardous waste is a special type of waste which, if not properly treated, can pose a risk to human health and to the environment. HCW contains potentially harmful microorganisms that can be spread among healthcare personnel, hospital patients and the general public, causing serious illnesses. Healthcare personnel are the specialists especially exposed to this risk. The most common medical procedure, which pose the highest risk, is injection (i.e, intramuscular, subcutaneous, intravenous, taking blood samples). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that around 16 billion injections are administered worldwide each year. However, if safety precautions are not followed, and needles and syringes are not properly disposed of, the risk of sharps injuries increases among medical staff, waste handlers and waste collectors. What is more, sharps injuries increase the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV/HCV), tuberculosis (TB), diphtheria, malaria, syphilis, brucellosis and other transmissions. Disposing of medical waste in a landfill without segregation and processing will result in the entry of harmful microorganisms, chemicals or pharmaceuticals into soil and groundwater, causing their contamination. Open burning or incinerator malfunctioning will result in the emission of toxic substances, such as dioxins and furans, into the air. In order to reduce the negative impact of medical waste, waste management principles should be formulated. To minimize health risks, it is also important to build awareness among health professionals and the general public through various communication and educational methods. The aim of this paper is to present a general overwiev of medical waste, its categories, the principles of its management and the risks to human health and the environment resulting from inappropriate waste management
Importance of donor blood chemistry data (AST, serum sodium) in predicting liver transplant outcome
No full text
[Blood recovery and autotransfusion within integrated transfusion systems during liver transplantation. The authors' own experience]
No full textObservational study on preoperative surgical field disinfection: Povidone-iodine and Chlorhexidine-alcohol.
No full textAbstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:
Surgical site infection (SSI) rate is reported to range around 16%. Preoperative skin disinfection is keystone for SSI reduction. Chlorhexidine-alcohol has been reported to be more effective than Povidone-iodine (PVI). However, in many countries established habits and the inferior costs of PVI restrain the employment of chlorhexidine disinfection kits (ChloraPrep®) for the preparation of the surgical field.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The costs of surgical field preparation in clean-contaminated surgery utilizing PVI (Betadine) and chlorhexidine alcohol and the evaluation of surgeon compliance and satisfaction, were studied by a observational study on 50 surgical operations in which surgical field was prepared with PVI checking established guidelines, and on 50 surgical operations in which chlorhexidine-alcohol (ChloraPrep) was employed. The use of auxiliary material was tabulated as well as the timing of the phases of disinfection and the surgeon's opinions.
RESULTS:
The use of auxiliary material (gloves, gauzes, paper towels, surgical instruments, small swabs for umbilical cleaning) is associated with the type of disinfectant, with major use of auxiliary materials recorded in PVI disinfection. PVI disinfection does not follow stringent guidelines, in particular waiting for the disinfectant to dry. PVI guidelines are more demanding than those relative to ChloraPrep. The time necessary for the preparation of the field is significantly longer for PVI. Auxiliary material and guideline compliance must be taken into account when calculating costs; the former are direct costs (even though marginal) and the latter can determine major infective risk.
CONCLUSIONS:
Chlorhexidine in kits is easier and faster to use than PVI, requires less auxiliary material and has been shown previously to reduce SSI in clean contaminated surger
Should retransplantation still be considered for primary non-function after liver transplantation?
No full textPrimary non-function (PNF) of a transplanted liver is a postoperative condition characterized by absence of hepatic recovery due to various insults during harvesting, preservation or revascularization. Until recently early retransplantation (RTx) has been considered the policy of choice. Results of RTx for PNF are unsatisfactory (1-year survival rates ranging from 0 to 34%). The management of PNF by medical care without RTx with a recovery rate of 80% and a 1-year actuarial survival rate of 50% is reported for a series of 33 consecutive liver transplants. The guidelines for the medical care management are given and the results are discussed
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
