Evaluation of the bacteriological and physicochemical quality of water supplies in Nsukka, Southeast, Nigeria

The bacteriological and physicochemical quality of various water samples from bore hole, dug well and spring, collected from ten different locations within Nsukka were determined. Total viable and coliform counts were evaluated using the standard plate count method and the most probable number (MPN) technique, respectively. The physicochemical parameters were analyzed using standard methods. The mean total bacteria count of the water samples ranged as follows: bore hole (0.92 × 104 to 1.41 × 104) cfu/ml, well water (1.80 × 104 to 2.40 × 104) cfu/ml and spring water (0.78 × 10,4 to 1.06 × 104) cfu/ml. The mean total coliform count of the samples in (MPN/100 ml) ranged as follows: bore hole (10 to 15), well water (14 to 18) and spring water (8 to 10). The isolated and identified bacteria were Enterobacter spp., Alcaligenes spp., Escherichia coli, Proteus spp., Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus sp. The physicochemical values of the water samples ranged as follows: pH (5.6 to 6.4), dissolved oxygen (DO) (5.4 to 6.4), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (10.0 to 20.4), chloride (1.6 to 2.3) mg L-1, total hardness (48.6 to 68.0) mg L-1, total dissolved solids (6.3 to 9.7) mg L-1, sulphate (2.0 to 3.4) mg L-1 and nitrate (1.2 to 4.1) mg L-1. The water supply sources in the present study have good physicochemical attributes for human consumption but the presence of E. coli and other potential enteric pathogens indicated faecal matter contamination of the water implying that they are not suitable for human consumption.Keywords: Drinking water, bacteriological and physicochemical quality, coliform

Developing agreement on never events in primary care dentistry:an international eDelphi study

Introduction: Never events (NEs) are a subset of serious patient safety incidents that should not occur if appropriate preventive measures are implemented. Although there is a consensus in medicine, there is no agreement on NEs in dentistry. Aim: To identify NEs in primary care dentistry. Method: We undertook an electronic Delphi exercise to develop an international agreement on NEs for primary care dentistry. Results: We initially identified candidate NEs through a scoping review of the literature and then analysed dentistry-related reports in a national incident reporting system. Next, we invited an international panel of 41 experts to complete two rounds of questionnaires; 32 agreed to participate (78%) and completed the first round and 29/41 (71%) members completed the second round. We provided anonymised controlled feedback between rounds and used a cut-off of 80% agreement to define consensus. Consensus was achieved for 23 out of 42 candidate NEs. These related to routine assessment, and pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative stages of dental procedures. Discussion and conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first international expert consensus-based approach that has identified NEs for primary care dentistry. We suggest that dental regulators consider these to support quality assessment and governance activities