Peer Observation of Teaching in E-learning environments in UK Universities

Peer observation of teaching (POT) is presented as a valuable mechanism allowing for the dissemination of best practice within university teaching. With the rapid rise of online learning courses, it could be expected that POT would be extended to the online environment. In practice, however, it appears that this development is inconsistent. Likewise, there has been little research into the experiences of teachers of online teaching, with research focused more on the technological aspects than on the delivery of teaching. Using a document analysis of a sample of UK universities and interviews with academics to assess a cross section of current institutional practice, this paper explores the intersection between POT and the online delivery of teaching and learning. The findings indicate that POT has not yet become a standard evaluative and/or developmental process in e-learning environments, although some universities do implement it within their CPD or teacher training programmes

The Effect of Femoral Nerve Block and Adductor Canal Block Methods on Patient Satisfaction in Unilateral Knee Arthroplasty: Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

Introduction: Femoral Nerve Block (FNB) and Adductor Canal Block (ACB) methods, which are regional analgesic techniques, are successfully used in postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to compare adductor canal block method that was preoperatively used and femoral nerve block method in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who underwent spinal anesthesia in terms of factors effecting patient satisfaction and determine whether these methods were equally effective or not. Methods: A total of 80 patients between the ages of 60 and 75 who were in the American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status of I-III were prospectively included in this randomized study. Patients (n = 40) who received FNB were called Group FNB and patients (n = 40) who received Adductor Canal Block were called Group ACB. Results: Although mean postoperative VAS values were lower in FNB group only in the first hour (p = 0.02) there was no significant difference between the groups in the third, fifth, seventh, ninth, 12th and 24th hours (p >= 0.05). Although Bromage scores were lower in FNB group in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth hours there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p >= 0.05). When mobilization time, patient satisfaction level, time of first analgesia, intraoperative sedation need, and recovery time of sensorial block were compared no statistically significant difference was found (p >= 0.05). Discussion: When ACB and FNB that are used for postoperative analgesia in patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty are compared in terms of factors affecting patient satisfaction it is observed that they result in the same level (non-inferiority) of patient satisfaction. Conclusion: We recommend the routine use of ACB method with FNB in total knee arthroplasty. More studies focusing especially on measuring patient satisfaction are needed

Spinal anesthesia versus combined sciatic nerve/lumbar plexus nerve block in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: The most important cause of mortality due to long bone fractures in the elderly patients are femoral fractures that require total hip arthroplasty (THA). THA surgeries may cause severe postoperative pain, long hospital stays, a need for transfusion and mortality. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes of spinal anesthesia (SA) versus combined sciatic nerve/lumbar plexus block (CSLPB). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort trial. SETTING: University hospital in Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We selected patients from the electronic medical records by date of surgery (most recent first) and compared demographic and pre- and postoperative clinical characteristics including the amount of opioid use within the first 48 postoperative hours, 30-day mortality rates, length of hospital stay, intraoperative oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) values, duration of the surgery, and blood transfusion need. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Opioid use within the first 48 postoperative hours. SAMPLE SIZE: 204, 102 patients in each group with overall median (IQR) age of 82 (10.2) years. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the amount of opioid use within the postoperative 48 hours, 30-day mortality rates, intensive care need, duration of the surgery, blood transfusion need, and length of hospital stay. While the intraoperative SpO(2) value was lower in the CSLPB group (P=.03), MAP values were lower in the SA group (P=.046). Preoperative American Society of Anesthesiology score (ASA) scores (P=.039) and the number of comorbidities were higher in the CSLPB group. CONCLUSION: We prefer CSLPB used with standardized sedation protocols for anesthesia in THA surgery in elderly patients. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and single-centered

Field study for determining the effect of COVID-19 on healthcare workers Effect of COVID-19 on healthcare workers

Aim: This study determines the anxiety levels of health workers by evaluating their anxiety status in the challenging process of the pandemic. Material and Methods: One hundred forty health workers who studied at pandemic hospital were included in the study. The data were collected using the Pandemic Period Data Form (PPDF), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), prepared for assessing anxiety levels of health workers in the face of the COVID-19 outbreak. Results: In the study there was a significant difference between the health care workers working in intensive care units and those working in non-intensive care units in terms of age, gender, and presence of children. We found that there was a significant difference in STAI state anxiety scores (p <.05) of health workers in terms of having children, and they had higher levels of state anxiety. On average, the health workers from intensive care units had higher levels of PPDF anxiety. In this study, we detected that the COVID-19 anxiety levels of the health workers between the ages of 20 and 30 were higher compared with those aged 41 and above (p < .05). Discussion: It was found that the pandemic process had a negative impact on health workers as their anxiety increased in this process. Elimination of the gaps related to application or information in the published guidelines can help health workers feel more safe

Contrast echocardiography with a physiological contrast agent for alcohol septal ablation

PurposeMyocardial contrast echocardiography in alcohol septal ablation (ASA) is critical prior to alcohol injection into the target septal artery branch. However, current contrast agents are expensive, carry the risk of anaphylaxis reaction, and are widely unavailable. Against this background, in this study, we introduce a practical solution for the assessment of target septal arteries by using physiological, practical, and safer intracoronary injections.MethodsThis study included 14 patients (8 females, 6 males), with symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy who underwent ASA between the years 2017 and 2025. Because of the unavailability and the high cost of contrast agents in our country, we used practical physiological agents, which comprised a cocktail fluid (agitated 5 mL of saline plus 0.5 mL blood of the patient). We injected ethanol (absolute alcohol 96%–99%) into the target perforatory artery using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in a step-by-step manner to observe a reduction in mitral regurgitation and QT prolongation at electrocardiographic monitorization (initially, 0.5 mL alcohol, then by increasing the dosage up to 3 mL).ResultsWe clearly obtained a good myocardial opacification of the interventricular basal septum border with our cocktail contrast agent. Furthermore, we used TEE in the ASA procedure, unlike other researchers who reported on this procedure. No arrhythmias and allergic reactions were recorded during the administration of the contrast agent. The mean dose of alcohol administered during ASA was 2.1 ± 0.7 mL. The procedural rate of success was highest (100%). We assessed the effectiveness of the treatment in terms of a reduction of the peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient and the disappearance of severe mitral regurgitation with a significantly systolic anterior motion.ConclusionsThe use of a physiological cocktail fluid in TEE exemplifies the use of a practical, alternative myocardial contrast agent for alcohol septal ablation

Outcome of COVID-19 in Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis: An International Multicenter Study

Background and Aims: Data regarding outcome of COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) are lacking. Approach and Results: We performed a retrospective study on patients with AIH and COVID-19 from 34 centers in Europe and the Americas. We analyzed factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care admission, and/or death. The outcomes of patients with AIH were compared to a propensity score?matched cohort of patients without AIH but with chronic liver diseases (CLD) and COVID-19. The frequency and clinical significance of new-onset liver injury (alanine aminotransferase > 2 × the upper limit of normal) during COVID-19 was also evaluated. We included 110 patients with AIH (80% female) with a median age of 49 (range, 18-85) years at COVID-19 diagnosis. New-onset liver injury was observed in 37.1% (33/89) of the patients. Use of antivirals was associated with liver injury (P = 0.041; OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.05-10.78), while continued immunosuppression during COVID-19 was associated with a lower rate of liver injury (P = 0.009; OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71). The rates of severe COVID-19 (15.5% versus 20.2%, P = 0.231) and all-cause mortality (10% versus 11.5%, P = 0.852) were not different between AIH and non-AIH CLD. Cirrhosis was an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 in patients with AIH (P < 0.001; OR, 17.46; 95% CI, 4.22-72.13). Continuation of immunosuppression or presence of liver injury during COVID-19 was not associated with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: This international, multicenter study reveals that patients with AIH were not at risk for worse outcomes with COVID-19 than other causes of CLD. Cirrhosis was the strongest predictor for severe COVID-19 in patients with AIH. Maintenance of immunosuppression during COVID-19 was not associated with increased risk for severe COVID-19 but did lower the risk for new-onset liver injury during COVID-19.Fil: Efe, Cumali. Harran University Hospital; TurquíaFil: Dhanasekaran, Renumathy. University of Stanford; Estados UnidosFil: Lammert, Craig. University School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Ebik, Berat. Gazi Yaşargil Education and Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Higuera de la Tijera, Fatima. Hospital General de México; MéxicoFil: Aloman, Costica. Rush University Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Rıza Calışkan, Ali. Adıyaman University; TurquíaFil: Peralta, Mirta. Latin American Liver Research Educational And Awareness Network; Argentina. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Infecciosas "Dr. Francisco Javier Muñiz"; ArgentinaFil: Gerussi, Alessio. University of Milano Bicocca; Italia. San Gerardo Hospital; ItaliaFil: Massoumi, Hatef. Montefiore Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Catana, Andreea M.. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Torgutalp, Murat. Universitätsmedizin Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Purnak, Tugrul. McGovern Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Rigamonti, Cristina. Azienda Ospedaliera Maggiore Della Carita Di Novara; Italia. Università del Piemonte Orientale; ItaliaFil: Gomez Aldana, Andres Jose. Universidad de los Andes; ColombiaFil: Khakoo, Nidah. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Kacmaz, Hüseyin. Adıyaman University; TurquíaFil: Nazal, Leyla. Clínica Las Condes; ChileFil: Frager, Shalom. Montefiore Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Demir, Nurhan. Haseki Training and Research Hospita; TurquíaFil: Irak, Kader. SBU Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Ellik, Zeynep Melekoğlu. Ankara University Medical Faculty; TurquíaFil: Balaban, Yasemin. Hacettepe University; TurquíaFil: Atay, Kadri. Mardin State Hospital; TurquíaFil: Eren, Fatih. Ordu State Hospital; TurquíaFil: Cristoferi, Laura. University of Milano Bicocca; Italia. San Gerardo Hospital; ItaliaFil: Batibay, Ersin. Harran University Hospital; TurquíaFil: Urzua, Álvaro. Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Medicina.; ChileFil: Snijders, Romee. Radboud University Medical Center; Países BajosFil: Ridruejo, Ezequiel. Latin American Liver Research Educational and Awareness Network; Argentina. Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine; Turquía. Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Effects of immunosuppressive drugs on COVID-19 severity in patients with autoimmune hepatitis

Background: We investigated associations between baseline use of immunosuppressive drugs and severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Patients and methods: Data of AIH patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively collected from 15 countries. The outcomes of AIH patients who were on immunosuppression at the time of COVID-19 were compared to patients who were not on AIH medication. The clinical courses of COVID-19 were classified as (i)-no hospitalization, (ii)-hospitalization without oxygen supplementation, (iii)-hospitalization with oxygen supplementation by nasal cannula or mask, (iv)-intensive care unit (ICU) admission with non-invasive mechanical ventilation, (v)-ICU admission with invasive mechanical ventilation or (vi)-death and analysed using ordinal logistic regression. Results: We included 254 AIH patients (79.5%, female) with a median age of 50 (range, 17-85) years. At the onset of COVID-19, 234 patients (92.1%) were on treatment with glucocorticoids (n = 156), thiopurines (n = 151), mycophenolate mofetil (n = 22) or tacrolimus (n = 16), alone or in combinations. Overall, 94 (37%) patients were hospitalized and 18 (7.1%) patients died. Use of systemic glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.73, 95% CI 1.12-25.89) and thiopurines (aOR 4.78, 95% CI 1.33-23.50) for AIH was associated with worse COVID-19 severity, after adjusting for age-sex, comorbidities and presence of cirrhosis. Baseline treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (aOR 3.56, 95% CI 0.76-20.56) and tacrolimus (aOR 4.09, 95% CI 0.69-27.00) were also associated with more severe COVID-19 courses in a smaller subset of treated patients. Conclusion: Baseline treatment with systemic glucocorticoids or thiopurines prior to the onset of COVID-19 was significantly associated with COVID-19 severity in patients with AIH.Fil: Efe, Cumali. Harran University Hospita; TurquíaFil: Lammert, Craig. University School of Medicine Indianapolis; Estados UnidosFil: Taşçılar, Koray. Universitat Erlangen-Nuremberg; AlemaniaFil: Dhanasekaran, Renumathy. University of Stanford; Estados UnidosFil: Ebik, Berat. Gazi Yasargil Education And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Higuera de la Tijera, Fatima. Hospital General de México; MéxicoFil: Calışkan, Ali R.. No especifíca;Fil: Peralta, Mirta. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Infecciosas "Dr. Francisco Javier Muñiz"; ArgentinaFil: Gerussi, Alessio. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Massoumi, Hatef. No especifíca;Fil: Catana, Andreea M.. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Purnak, Tugrul. University of Texas; Estados UnidosFil: Rigamonti, Cristina. Università del Piemonte Orientale ; ItaliaFil: Aldana, Andres J. G.. Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogota; ColombiaFil: Khakoo, Nidah. Miami University; Estados UnidosFil: Nazal, Leyla. Clinica Las Condes; ChileFil: Frager, Shalom. Montefiore Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Demir, Nurhan. Haseki Training And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Irak, Kader. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Melekoğlu Ellik, Zeynep. Ankara University Medical Faculty; TurquíaFil: Kacmaz, Hüseyin. Adıyaman University; TurquíaFil: Balaban, Yasemin. Hacettepe University; TurquíaFil: Atay, Kadri. No especifíca;Fil: Eren, Fatih. No especifíca;Fil: Alvares da-Silva, Mario R.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Cristoferi, Laura. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Urzua, Álvaro. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Eşkazan, Tuğçe. Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine; TurquíaFil: Magro, Bianca. No especifíca;Fil: Snijders, Romee. No especifíca;Fil: Barutçu, Sezgin. No especifíca;Fil: Lytvyak, Ellina. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Zazueta, Godolfino M.. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Demirezer Bolat, Aylin. Ankara City Hospital; TurquíaFil: Aydın, Mesut. Van Yuzuncu Yil University; TurquíaFil: Amorós Martín, Alexandra Noemí. No especifíca;Fil: De Martin, Eleonora. No especifíca;Fil: Ekin, Nazım. No especifíca;Fil: Yıldırım, Sümeyra. No especifíca;Fil: Yavuz, Ahmet. No especifíca;Fil: Bıyık, Murat. Necmettin Erbakan University; TurquíaFil: Narro, Graciela C.. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Bıyık, Murat. Uludag University; TurquíaFil: Kıyıcı, Murat. No especifíca;Fil: Kahramanoğlu Aksoy, Evrim. No especifíca;Fil: Vincent, Maria. No especifíca;Fil: Carr, Rotonya M.. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Günşar, Fulya. No especifíca;Fil: Reyes, Eira C.. Hepatology Unit. Hospital Militar Central de México; MéxicoFil: Harputluoğlu, Murat. Inönü University School of Medicine; TurquíaFil: Aloman, Costica. Rush University Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Gatselis, Nikolaos K.. University Hospital Of Larissa; GreciaFil: Üstündağ, Yücel. No especifíca;Fil: Brahm, Javier. Clinica Las Condes; ChileFil: Vargas, Nataly C. E.. Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo; PerúFil: Güzelbulut, Fatih. No especifíca;Fil: Garcia, Sandro R.. Hospital Iv Víctor Lazarte Echegaray; PerúFil: Aguirre, Jonathan. Hospital Angeles del Pedregal; MéxicoFil: Anders, Margarita. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Ratusnu, Natalia. Hospital Regional de Ushuaia; ArgentinaFil: Hatemi, Ibrahim. No especifíca;Fil: Mendizabal, Manuel. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Floreani, Annarosa. Università di Padova; ItaliaFil: Fagiuoli, Stefano. No especifíca;Fil: Silva, Marcelo. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Idilman, Ramazan. No especifíca;Fil: Satapathy, Sanjaya K.. No especifíca;Fil: Silveira, Marina. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Drenth, Joost P. H.. No especifíca;Fil: Dalekos, George N.. No especifíca;Fil: N.Assis, David. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Björnsson, Einar. No especifíca;Fil: Boyer, James L.. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Yoshida, Eric M.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Invernizzi, Pietro. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Levy, Cynthia. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Montano Loza, Aldo J.. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Schiano, Thomas D.. No especifíca;Fil: Ridruejo, Ezequiel. Universidad Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET; ArgentinaFil: Wahlin, Staffan. No especifíca

Smoke-free Ege: An attempt for an integrative prevention strategy for tobacco control at a University setting

Introduction Ege University is a pioneering university at Ege region with its 70 000 students and approximately 3000 academic staff. Tobacco control policies, parallel to the current regulations in the country, are an important issue for Ege University too, yet it bares important opportunities as well as barriers for an integrative approach for tobacco control on University Campus. Aim This study aims to explain the construction of Smoke-Free Ege Working Group, its formal initiation at the World No Tobacco Day (May 31st) and its subsequent action plan structured in the light of MPOWER. Methods Since 1999, smoking cessation outpatient service delivery points have been the main units of motivation for tobacco control policies at Ege University. Although Turkey is moving well about tobacco regulations, adherence to regulations is deficient and high prevalence of smoking among university staff and students remains as a major concern throughout the years. In March 2018, the administrative bodies of Medical School, have dealt their concerns to the units serving care for cessation and have gathered them at a first meeting. The Dean and Medical Manager of Medical Faculty, with a non-smoker administrative team, mentored and facilitated these efforts. Starting at this point, with regular meetings, the representatives determined their objectives, current barriers and opportunities. The construction of Smoke-Free Ege Working Group has rooted from these consecutive meetings. In the light of MPOWER, specific objectives at University Campus were listed. The major aim of the group was recognized as “changing the norms and culture for smoking”. This needed a good promotion strategy as well as collaboration with staff, students and administrative units. The efforts were collaborated with the Communications Unit of the University. A logo was created, brochures to raise awareness for the Smoke Free issue and the Working group, were prepared. The formal presentation of the Working Group was planned as a colorful activity on World No Tobacco Day, May 31st. To gather more visibility at the social media and press, representatives from three major opponent sports teams of Izmir city were invited. Results The Working Group was introduced to the media in the presence of the Rector, Dean, Medical managerl and all administrative units of the Medical School. Staff who succeeded to stop smoking, at the cessation service of the University, were awarded with certificates. The media showed great interest in the activity as it was put as “the famous sportsmen are supporting the efforts for a Smoke-free university”. Students and staff attended and shared the activity in social media as the entrance of the meeting was also colorfully designed for such promotion. Conclusions The Working Group has achieved to attract attention of staff, students and responsible bodies of the University and now moving forward for Smoke –Free Councils with students and staff representatives. Barriers and opportunities will be discussed, actions in the light of MPOWER, will be planned at these Councils. Smoke –Free Unit certifications and awards, designing smoking points outside of education and hospital settings and changing the “norm” are targeted