12,875 research outputs found
La valutazione del Rischio Clinico percepito in un Blocco Operatorio:analisi sperimentale e progetto di intervento
No full textRazionale. La finalità dello studio consiste nell’analisi delle attività infermieristiche in ambito operatorio e nella creazione di una mappatura
delle criticità organizzative e di processo tramite strumenti testati e validati in altre realtà. Si proporrà un nuovo strumento di
prevenzione del “rischio clinico” ed un progetto didattico di aggiornamento professionale rivolto al personale infermieristico.
Obiettivo. La gestione dei processi di rischio all’interno di una struttura complessa quale un Blocco operatorio di chirurgia generale,
rappresenta un difficile compito per infermieri e personale sanitario che vi lavora quotidianamente. obiettivo di questo lavoro è fornire
informazioni relative e proporre un metodo integrato di formazione del personale e di controllo dei fattori di rischio utilizzando nuovi
strumenti.
Metodologia. utilizzo di metodiche di approccio al problema, come la SafetyWalkAround e l’analisi FMEcA adattandole al contesto
operativo. A livello di formazione si sono utilizzati strumenti di indagine conoscitiva come l’intervista con questionario e il Focus group
per la valutazione delle competenze e del livello culturale degli infermieri in materia.
Risultati. Vengono descritti gli strumenti di indagine; si è creata una scheda di prevenzione del possibile “evento avverso” applicabile
al contesto lavorativo. Si propone un corso di formazione al personale delineandone contenuti, modalità e verifica.
Conclusioni. gli strumenti proposti forniscono un validissimo aiuto nell’identificazione delle criticità strutturali e assistenziali. il loro
utilizzo ha permesso di evidenziare punti critici e la relativa ricerca di soluzioni concrete. La proposta di un corso di formazione è stata
pienamente accettata dal personale infermieristico, propenso a migliorarsi per fornire livelli assistenziali più alti
Bridging the gap between basic science and clinical curricula: lessons from SARS-COV-2 pandemic
No full textWe read with great interest the inspiring collection of papers Education in Anatomy (Volume 43, issue 4, April 2021), and we wish to share our scientific view on this topic. Everybody knows that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread to become a global pandemic. From studies on Neanderthal’s gene clusters associated with severe COVID-19 [5], to vaccine and therapeutics development, histopathological examination of patient’s tissues, and structural basis of virus protein’s antigenicity, the worldwide research community is spending tremendous efforts in understanding COVID-19 disease. Can we exploit all this knowledge to make anatomy more relevant for the future
Reclaiming Anatomy as Method: From Morphological Reasoning to Clinical Relevance
No full textIn recent decades, molecular biology and omics technologies have profoundly reshaped biomedical research, with genomics, proteomics, and other high-throughput approaches dominating scientific agendas and funding priorities. Within this molecular paradigm, however, the anatomical sciences face an epistemic and institutional tension: morphology, historically grounded in the study of form, structure, and spatial relationships, is increasingly framed as merely descriptive or obsolete. This Viewpoint moves beyond the familiar narrative of a “decline of anatomy” to argue for its strategic reinvention as a core scientific method. Anatomy is not simply a body of knowledge but a way of seeing and reasoning that remains essential for understanding biological systems. Morphological thinking—linking structure to function in situ—provides integrative insights that cannot be derived from molecular data alone. Based on historical perspectives, epistemology, and recent advances in imaging and integrative methodologies, we show how anatomy continues to drive hypothesis generation, biomedical innovation, and clinical decision-making. Using the Italian academic system as a case study, we highlight the growing institutional disconnect between anatomical teaching and morphologically grounded research, exacerbated by metric-driven evaluation frameworks. Finally, we propose a roadmap for embedding morphology within emerging platforms such as spatial biology, high-resolution imaging, and AI-assisted analysis, reclaiming anatomy as a methodological compass for navigating biological complexity and clinical translation
Guida Pratica alla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Farmaci
No full textSperimentazione Clinica dei Farmac
Plume risk in videolaparoscopy and in endoscopic surgery
No full textApproximately 90% of endoscopic and open surgical procedures generate some level of surgical smoke. (Ulmer B, 1998).
Lasers and electrosurgery devices commonly used to cut, coagulate, vaporize, and ablate tissue are the “hot” tools that cause targeted cells to heat to the point of rupturing the cellular membrane and spewing cellular contents into the air as surgical smoke. Through continuous exposure, the inhalation of surgical smoke can become harmful to the surgical team members. Plume can also be hazardous to patients during laparoscopy or other endoscopy procedures when the contaminants of surgical smoke are absorbed into the patient’s vascular system.
Research studies have repeatedly highlighted the hazards of surgical smoke during laser use so smoke evacuation has been accepted as a common practice. Unfortunately evacuation of smoke generated during electrosurgery has not been as widely accepted even though research has been definitive in proving inhalation hazards. One of the most interesting paper, by Tomita, demonstrated that using an electrosurgery device on one gram of tissue, inhaling the plume was equivalent to smoking 6 unfiltered cigarettes. This study demonstrated that plume generated during electrosurgical procedures has the potential to be twice as harmful as the smoke produced during laser surgeries. (Tomita et al., 1989) The bottom line is that all surgical smoke should be considered as harmful if not evacuated appropriately. Unfortunately many healthcare professionals are indifferent and do not feel the need to evacuate plume since they have been breathing it for years.
The following toxic chemical byproducts have been identified in surgical smoke resulting from tissue pyrolysis: (Hoglan, 1995 and Ott, 1993) acrolein, acetonitrile acrylonitrile, methane phenol polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons propene propylene pyridene pyrrole styrene toluene xylene, acetylene alkyl benzenes, benzene, butadiene, butane, carbon monoxide creosols, ethane, ethylene, formaldehyde, free radicals hydrogen, cyanide isobutene.
Complete evacuation of surgical smoke is necessary because of these unwanted hazards and potential complications. Research has conclusively shown that surgical smoke is hazardous to the surgical team members who are exposed to it on a continual basis and hazardous to endoscopic patients when the plume is not evacuated.
Also during endoscopic procedures the usage of electric tools to cut and coagulate is frequent, and this could represent a real problems for operators may be more than for the patients.
At the present time it is not possible to find in literature papers about hazards of surgical smoke during endoscopic procedures even if they have to be considered definitely as surgical procedures. This implies the necessity of a deeper consciousness to the smokes risk and consequently a more care in operators and patients protection
- …
