Media properties of different vermicompost and coir dust mixtures

In recent years, the demand for coir dust has increased as it is widely used as a growth medium in soilless culture. Since it is low in nutrients, when mixed with vermicompost, will provide a better growthmedium for plant establishment. Therefore, this study was carried out to evaluate the properties ofdifferent verrnicornpost and coir dust mixtures. Tomato was used as the test plant and four differentmedia compositions were tested with and without nutrient supplement. Media properties includingchemical (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg levels, pH and Electrical conductivity [ECl) and physical properties(Bulk density, Field capacity and drying pattern) were measured in the time period.Nutrient levels, pH, EC, bulk density, and drying rates were found to be decreased and only fieldcapacity increased with increasing the proportion of coir dust. According to the result obtained,vermicompost alone can be used as a plant growth medium. But poor porosity and aeration ofvermicompost limit the root growth and lowered the water holding capacity. Therefore, medium with75% verrnicompost and 25% coil' dust is more suitable than vennicompost alone. Medium with 50%verrnicornpost and 50% coir dust has better physical properties, but nutrient level is not sufficient tosupport plant growth. Therefore nutrient supplement is needed to use it as growing medium.

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries

PURPOSE: To develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1–5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff well-being, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: This consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs