Pilgrims’ Progress: Faculty and University Factors in Graduate Student Integration of Faith and Learning

Graduate students\u27 perspectives on integration of faith and profession were investigated using item response to identify underlying constructs. Students (N = 595) from various professions and four universities were sampled. Three factors were supported as separate and important constructs for students. The first two factors were drawn from Sorenson\u27s research on attachment theory, faculty as bulwark of the faith versus fellow sojourner and faculty as emotionally transparent versus emotionally distant. A new domain of integration, environmental factors such as class Scripture reading, was supported as a unique factor. An examination of diversity variables gave preliminary evidence that females and students of color may see emotional transparency and environmental factors as more important in Christian integration than other students

Giant breast tumors: Surgical management of phyllodes tumors, potential for reconstructive surgery and a review of literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Phyllodes tumors are biphasic fibroepithelial neoplasms of the breast. While the surgical management of these relatively uncommon tumors has been addressed in the literature, few reports have commented on the surgical approach to tumors greater than ten centimeters in diameter – the giant phyllodes tumor.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report two cases of giant breast tumors and discuss the techniques utilized for pre-operative diagnosis, tumor removal, and breast reconstruction. A review of the literature on the surgical management of phyllodes tumors was performed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Management of the giant phyllodes tumor presents the surgeon with unique challenges. The majority of these tumors can be managed by simple mastectomy. Axillary lymph node metastasis is rare, and dissection should be limited to patients with pathologic evidence of tumor in the lymph nodes.</p

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary

Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Georgia Institute of Technology and Morehouse School of Medicine; Pamboukian SV: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Teuteberg JJ: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Birks E: University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; Lietz K: Loyola University, Chicago, Maywood, Illinois; Moore SA: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Morgan JA: Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Arabia F: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Bauman ME: University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada; Buchholz HW: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital and Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Deng M: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Dickstein ML: Columbia University, New York, New York; El-Banayosy A: Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Elliot T: Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia; Goldstein DJ: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York; Grady KL: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Jones K: Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Hryniewicz K: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; John R: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Kaan A: St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Kusne S: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Loebe M: Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas; Massicotte P: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Moazami N: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mohacsi P: University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland; Mooney M: Sentara Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Nelson T: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Pagani F: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Perry W: Integris Baptist Health Care, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Potapov EV: Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Rame JE: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Russell SD: Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland; Sorensen EN: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Sun B: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Strueber M: Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany Mangi AA: Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Petty MG: University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolin

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries