CV15015

This report provides the main results of the 2015 underwater television survey on the ‘Labadie, Jones and Cockburn Banks’ ICES assessment area; Functional Unit 20-21. This was the second survey to achieve full coverage of the full area. The 2015 survey was multidisciplinary in nature collecting UWTV, CTD and other ecosystem data. A total of 96 UWTV stations were completed at 6 nmi intervals over a randomised isometric grid design. The mean burrow density was 0.20 burrows/m2 compared with 0.19 burrows/m2 in 2014. The 2015 geostatistical abundance estimate was 2.0±0.02 billion a 2% decrease on the abundance for 2014 with a CV of 3% which is well below the upper limit of 20% recommended by SGNEPS 2012. Highest densities were general observed towards the north and southwest of the ground, and there were also high densities observed close to boundaries. Using the 2015 abundance estimate and updated stock data implies catch of 3045 tonnes and landings of 2225 tonnes. Only one species of sea pen Virgilaria mirabilis was recorded as present at the stations surveyed. Trawl marks were observed at 30% of the stations surveyed

The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials

Randomised evaluations of surgical interventions are rare; some interventions have been widely adopted without rigorous evaluation. Unlike other medical areas, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design has not become the default study design for the evaluation of surgical interventions. Surgical trials are difficult to successfully undertake and pose particular practical and methodological challenges. However, RCTs have played a role in the assessment of surgical innovations and there is scope and need for greater use. This article will consider the design, conduct and analysis of an RCT of a surgical intervention. The issues will be reviewed under three headings: the timing of the evaluation, defining the research question and trial design issues. Recommendations on the conduct of future surgical RCTs are made. Collaboration between research and surgical communities is needed to address the distinct issues raised by the assessmentof surgical interventions and enable the conduct of appropriate and well-designed trials.The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery compared with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy : a randomised controlled trial

PMID: 23111090 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3543288 Free PMC ArticlePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Food safety in hospital: knowledge, attitudes and practices of nursing staff of two hospitals in Sicily, Italy

BACKGROUND: Food hygiene in hospital poses peculiar problems, particularly given the presence of patients who could be more vulnerable than healthy subjects to microbiological and nutritional risks. Moreover, in nosocomial outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease, the mortality risk has been proved to be significantly higher than the community outbreaks and highest for foodborne outbreaks. On the other hand, the common involvement in the role of food handlers of nurses or domestic staff, not specifically trained about food hygiene and HACCP, may represent a further cause of concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning food safety of the nursing staff of two hospitals in Palermo, Italy. Association with some demographic and work-related determinants was also investigated. METHODS: The survey was conducted, by using a semi-structured questionnaire, in March-November 2005 in an acute general hospital and a paediatric hospital, where nursing staff is routinely involved in food service functions. RESULTS: Overall, 401 nurses (279, 37.1%, of the General Hospital and 122, 53.5%, of the Paediatric Hospital, respectively) answered. Among the respondents there was a generalized lack of knowledge about etiologic agents and food vehicles associated to foodborne diseases and proper temperatures of storage of hot and cold ready to eat foods. A general positive attitude towards temperature control and using clothing and gloves, when handling food, was shared by the respondents nurses, but questions about cross-contamination, refreezing and handling unwrapped food with cuts or abrasions on hands were frequently answered incorrectly. The practice section performed better, though sharing of utensils for raw and uncooked foods and thawing of frozen foods at room temperatures proved to be widely frequent among the respondents. Age, gender, educational level and length of service were inconsistently associated with the answer pattern. More than 80% of the respondent nurses did not attend any educational course on food hygiene. Those who attended at least one training course fared significantly better about some knowledge issues, but no difference was detected in both the attitude and practice sections. CONCLUSION: Results strongly emphasize the need for a safer management of catering in the hospitals, where non professional food handlers, like nursing or domestic staff, are involved in food service functions

Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members

Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes