22 research outputs found

    Identifying Roadkill Hotspots Using a Running Average

    Get PDF
    The identification of roadkill hotspots is necessary prior to the consideration of wildlife road mortality mitigation measures. In a previous study, 178 roadkill specimens were tallied via a driving survey along 21.4 km (13.3 mi) on three connected roadways in Baldwin County, Georgia. Roadkill locations were recorded to the nearest 0.16 km (0.1 mi) using the vehicle odometer. In the current study, location data were used to generate three graphical displays of roadkill distribution: 1) a linear graph of roadkills per 0.16 km (0.1 mi) bin; 2) a linear graph of roadkills per 0.8 km (0.5 mi) bin; and 3) a linear graph with a continuous running average incorporating 0.48 km (0.3 mi). The number and position of the peaks on each graph were compared in relation to roadway features that may influence animal movement and mortality such as vegetative boundaries, stream crossings, hills, and curves. The running average plot provided the best visual illustration of roadkill hotspot locations in relation to roadside features. The running average is a good technique to quickly and accurately identify hotspot locations and could help resource managers plan mitigation strategies to decrease wildlife road mortality

    Rules of engagement: The role of mistreatment from patients in the nurse, physician and advanced practice provider experience

    Get PDF
    The objective of this study is to examine the incidence of reported stress due to mistreatment by patients toward clinicians and the role of mistreatment from patients along with organizational factors in clinician distress. A survey of clinicians was conducted at a large academic medical center, resulting in a final analytic sample of 1,682 physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers and clinical support staff. Nurses reported the greatest incidence of mistreatment by patients as a major stressor (18.69%), followed by Advanced Practice Providers (11.26%), Clinical Support Staff (10.36%), and Physicians (7.69%). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship of individual- and organization-level characteristics with the odds of reporting mistreatment from patients as a major stressor. Overall findings indicate that nurses and those who work in the ER and ambulatory or outpatient clinics were more likely to be stressed from mistreatment by patients than other clinicians. Stress due to mistreatment by patients was also associated with higher Well-Being Index (WBI) distress scores, rapid changes in workflows or policies, ongoing care of COVID-19 patients, under-staffing, and low perceived organizational support. Gender or sexual minorities (not identifying as male or female) and younger (18-34 years of age) healthcare workers were also more likely to experience stress from mistreatment by patients. Individual resilience was not statistically significantly associated with reported stress from mistreatment by patients. Organizations must examine expectations for patient and visitor behavior in tandem with service standards for clinicians toward patients. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Staff & Provider Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

    Perceived stress from social isolation or loneliness among clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers during COVID-19

    No full text
    Abstract Background Workplace social isolation and loneliness have been found to result in a decline in job satisfaction and an increase in burnout among working individuals. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated feelings of loneliness and social isolation among healthcare workers. The majority of research on healthcare worker experiences is conducted in siloes which does not reflect the shared experiences of interprofessional teams. The purpose of this study is to understand stress from social isolation or loneliness across the entire clinical and non-clinical healthcare team over the course of the pandemic. Methods Data was acquired using a cross-sectional survey distributed to healthcare workers once a year at a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022). Information pertaining to job role, work location, and demographic factors was collected. Participants were also asked to assess individual well-being and resilience, in addition to reporting stress derived from various sources including job demands and social isolation or loneliness. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were conducted to assess the association between stress from social isolation or loneliness and individual characteristics. Results Stress from social isolation or loneliness was found to decrease over the survey period across all measured variables. Trainees and physician-scientists were found to report the highest rates of this stressor compared to other job roles, while Hospital-Based ICU and Non-ICU work locations reported the highest rates of loneliness and social isolation stress. Younger workers and individuals from marginalized gender and racial groups were at greater risk for stress from social isolation or loneliness. Conclusions Given the importance of social connections for well-being and job performance, organizations have a responsibility to create conditions and mechanisms to foster social connections. This includes establishing and reinforcing norms of behavior, and developing connection mechanisms, particularly for groups at high risk of loneliness and social isolation

    Perioperative in-stent thrombosis after lung resection performed within 3 months of coronary stenting

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Incidence of perioperative in-stent thrombosis associated with myocardial infarction in patients undergoing major lung resection within 3 months of coronary stenting. METHODS: Retrospective multi-institutional trial including all patients undergoing major lung resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) within 3 months of coronary stenting with non-drug-eluting stents between 1999 and 2004. RESULTS: There were 32 patients (29 men and 3 women), with age ranging from 46 to 82 years. One, two or four coronary stents were deployed in 72%, 22% and 6% of the patients, respectively. The time intervals between stenting and lung surgery were <30 days, 30-60 days and 61-90 days in 22%, 53% and 25% of the patients, respectively. All patients had dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting. Perioperative medication consisted of heparin alone or heparin plus aspirin in 34% and 66% of the patients, respectively. Perioperative in-stent thrombosis with myocardial infarction occurred in three patients (9%) with fatal outcome in one (3%). Twenty patients underwent lung resection after 4 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy as recommended by the ACC/AHA Guideline Update; however, two out of three perioperative in-stent thrombosis occurred in this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Major lung resection performed within 3 months of coronary stenting may be complicated by perioperative in-stent thrombosis despite 4 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting as recommended by the ACC/AHA Guideline Update
    corecore