Awareness of Radiation Protection and Common Radiation Dose Levels Among Healthcare Workers

Introduction: Access to ionizing radiation has become widely available for diagnosis and treatment. The increased use of ionizing radiation has been associated with radiation exposure hazards for patients and radiation workers. Raising the level of radiation protection awareness is important to maintain the safety of healthcare settings. Methods: Online questionnaires were distributed to 755 healthcare workers and students at King Abdulaziz Medical City and King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire consisted of 14 multiple-choice questions divided into two sections (questions related to radiation protection and common radiologic examination doses). Results: In total, 443 participants completed the questionnaire, including 142 (32%) medical students, 107 (24%) radiology technologists, 105 (24%) radiography students, and 89 (20%) physicians. Of the participants, 245 (55%) were men. A total of 74 (84%) physicians and 51 (47%) radiology technologists had more than 5 years of experience. Eleven (12%) physicians and 44 (41%) radiology technologists had 1–4 years of experience, whereas the rest had less than 1 year of experience. Only 16% of participants attended training courses on a regular basis. However, 15% of the participants thought that they had excellent knowledge of radiation protection, whereas 18% admitted that they did not have sufficient knowledge. Sixty-two percent of the questions related to radiation protection awareness were answered correctly. Forty-five percent of the participants correctly answered questions related to doses from common radiologic examinations. Only 23% and 16% of participants were aware of the noncontrast chest CT and lumbar x-ray doses, respectively. Moreover, 35% and 24% of participants did not know that pelvic MRI and abdominal ultrasound do not contribute any radiation dose, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed a knowledge gap regarding radiation protection and dose levels; therefore, periodic refresher courses are recommended for healthcare workers in order to increase the level of awareness

Visible light‐active pure and lanthanum‐doped copper oxide nanostructures for photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue dye and hydrogen production

Clean water and renewable energy sources are becoming increasingly important in the current era, as well as a future challenge, and one of the potential solutions is photocatalysis. In the current study, a simple one-step hydrothermal technique is employed to fabricate the pure and La-doped CuO (0%, 1%, 3%, 5%, and 7%) photocatalysts. The influence of varying La concentration on structure, morphology, and optical properties is determined by scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), ultraviolet (UV)–visible spectroscopy, and photoluminescence. SEM showed that synthesized nanostructures are irregularly spherical and transform into needle-like nanostructures on increasing La concentration. XRD revealed the monoclinic phase with a crystallite size of 15–23 nm. The UV–visible spectrum exhibited a decrease in the band gap of La-doped CuO needle-like nanostructures from UV to visible light. The composition and purity of synthesized nanostructures are evaluated via the energy-dispersive X-ray spectrum which revealed that needle-like nanostructures are pure without any impurity traces. The synthesized nanostructures were used as a photocatalyst against methylene blue dye to examine their photocatalytic activity. The synthesized CuO-3La photocatalyst exhibited excellent photocatalytic performance of dye degradation and hydrogen production 95.3 μmol h−1 g−1 with more than 97% cyclic stability. Therefore, the synthesized La-doped CuO nanostructures are potential candidates for photocatalytic water splitting and hydrogen evolution

COVID-19 Delta Variant: Perceptions, Worries, and Vaccine-Booster Acceptability among Healthcare Workers

Background: As the COVID-19 Delta variant has spread across the globe, healthcare workers’ (HCWs) knowledge, worries, and vaccine booster acceptance should be assessed. Methods: Online questionnaires aimed at HCWs in Saudi Arabia were distributed between 9 and 12 August 2021, aiming to evaluate HCWs’ perceptions and worries about the Delta variant as well as their feelings about receiving a booster-vaccine. Results: A total of 1279 HCWs participated, with 51.1% being physicians and 41.7% nurses. 92.5% were aware of the emergence of the Delta variant. Still, only 28.7% were found to have sufficient knowledge of the variant, and their level of worry about it was higher than their level of worry about the Alpha variant (2.32/5 versus 1.79/5). The main information sources cited by the participants were social media (50.5%), while 30.5% used scientific journals. Overall, 55.3% were willing to receive a vaccine booster, while one third would have preferred to receive a new mRNA vaccine specifically developed for the Delta variant. Factors associated with vaccine booster acceptance were receiving both vaccination doses (p = 0.008), believing that the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine is effective against variants (p < 0.001), and agreement that mixing/matching vaccines is effective against variants (p < 0.001). Conclusions: A high percentage of HCWs were aware of the Delta variant, but only a small fraction had decent quality of knowledge about it. The participants exhibited high worry levels and showed a modest acceptance of receiving a vaccine booster dose. These results should encourage public health officials to scale up educational efforts to disseminate reliable information about the different variants and provide recommendations about receiving a vaccine booster. Further research on methods to alleviate HCWs’ worries about emerging variants is warranted

Parental Attitudes and Hesitancy About COVID-19 vs. Routine Childhood Vaccinations: A National Survey

Objectives: To quantify parental acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess the vaccine hesitancy (VH) for COVID-19 vs. childhood vaccines. Methods: Eight vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS) items, adopted from WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Immunization (SAGE), were used to assess VH for COVID-19 vaccine vs. routine childhood vaccines. We distributed the online survey to parents with the commence of the national childhood COVID-19 vaccination program in Saudi Arabia. Results: Among 3,167 parents, 47.6% are decided to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. The most common reasons for refusal were inadequate safety information (69%) and worry about side effects (60.6%). Parents have a significantly greater positive attitudes toward children's routine vaccines vs. the COVID-19 vaccine, with higher mean VHS (±SD) = 2.98 ± 0.58 vs. 2.63 ± 0.73, respectively (p-value < 0.001). Parents agreed more that routine childhood vaccines are more essential and effective as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine (Cohen's D: 0.946, and 0.826, consecutively; T-test p-value < 0.00). There is more parental anxiety about serious side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine vs. routine childhood vaccines (Cohen's D = 0.706, p-value < 0.001). Parents who relied on the Ministry of Health information were more predicted (OR = 1.28, p-value = 0.035) to intend to vaccinate as opposed to those who used the WHO website (OR = 0.47, −53%, p-value < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the factors associated with intention to vaccinate children were parents who received COVID-19 vaccine, older parents, having children aged 12–18, and parents with lower education levels. Conclusions: Significant proportion of parents are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine because they are less confident in its effectiveness, safety, and whether it is essential for their children. Relying on the national official healthcare authority's website for the source of information was associated with increased acceptance of childhood COVID-19 vaccination. As parental intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 is suboptimal, healthcare authorities could boost vaccine uptake by campaigns targeting hesitant parents

The Epidemiology and Outcome of Biliary Atresia: Saudi Arabian National Study (2000–2018)

BackgroundThe epidemiology and outcomes of biliary atresia (BA) have been well-documented in national cohorts from two main ethnicities, namely, the Asian Orientals and Caucasians, with incidence ranging from 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 9,000 live births in East Asia and 1 in 15,000 to 19,000 live births in Europe and North America.ObjectiveWe report the first nationwide BA study outside North America, Europe, and East Asia to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of BA in Saudi Arabia.MethodsA national database of BA cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2018 was analyzed. We assessed clearance of jaundice (bilirubin &lt;20 μmol/L) in all cases that underwent Kasai portoenterostomy (KPE). We then estimated survival using the Kaplan–Meier method with endpoints of liver transplantation (LT), death, or survival with native liver (SNL).ResultsBA was diagnosed in 204 infants (106 females; 10% pre-term). The incidence of BA was 1 in 44,365, or 2.254 in 100,000 live births (range, 0.5–4 in 100,000). Polysplenia was diagnosed in 22 cases (11%). The median age at referral was 65 days. A total of 146 children (71.5%) underwent KPE at a median age of 70 days. Clearance of jaundice was achieved in 66 of the 146 (45%) infants. The 10-year SNL after KPE was 25.5%, and the overall 10-year estimated survival was 72.5%. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for patients undergoing KPE at the age of &lt;60, 61–90, and &gt;90 days showed a SNL rate at 51.6, 33, and 12.5%, respectively, at 5 years (P &lt; 0.001). The 2-, 5-, and 10-year post-LT survival rates were 92.5, 90.6, and 90%, respectively. Undergoing an initial KPE did not impact negatively on the overall LT survival rate when compared to BA cases that underwent primary LT (P = 0.88).ConclusionThe incidence rate of BA in Saudi Arabia is lower than the incidence reported elsewhere. Late referral of BA cases remains a problem in Saudi Arabia; as a result, the SNL rate was lower than reported by other national registries. Hence, national policies devoted to timely referral and earlier age at KPE are needed

Global prevalence and genotype distribution of hepatitis C virus infection in 2015 : A modelling study

Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Elsevier LtdBackground The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of—and expansion on—the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64–103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1·0% (95% uncertainty interval 0·8–1·1) in 2015, corresponding to 71·1 million (62·5–79·4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections. Funding John C Martin Foundation.publishersversionPeer reviewe

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat