An ethnographic study of the culture in a diagnostic imaging department

The aim of this study was to explore the culture in a Diagnostic Imaging Department (DID) with the primary focus on Diagnostic Radiographers (DRs). The objectives were to describe the culture in a DID and highlight the current workplace cultural issues that face DRs, to explore how people learn to become a DR and how they become professionally socialised, and to observe and describe how DRs communicate and interact within the DID. Method An ethnographic approach was used and participant observation was carried out for a four month period in a DID in the East of England. Semi-structured interviews with ten key informants were carried out to explore further the issues uncovered by the observation. Results The data was analysed using thematic analysis and four overarching concepts were identified. Relationships with patients Relationships with colleagues Structure and environment Characterising the role of the DR DRs exhibit resistance to change; and ambivalence to research, continuing professional development (CPD) and evidence-based-practice. Domination by the medical profession remains and affects the culture. DRs continue to conform to accepted behaviour; this is passed on through role modelling. They make a rapid assessment of patients in order to deal with them; theytend not to become involved with patients emotionally; exercising professional detachment. Team working evidently plays an important role in the DID. Conclusion The results of this study help to describe the complex nature of the culture in the DID. The DID is a task-focussed environment where efficiency is important, as a result patient care and quality of service may suffer. DRs need to be more pro-active in promoting and developing their profession. Recommendations Further research is recommended into patient care skills, the level of or need for emotional intelligence, coping strategies used and the process of professional socialisation.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Medical Image sharing: What do the public see when reviewing radiographs? A pilot study.

Introduction Policymakers wish to extend access to medical records, including medical imaging. Appreciating how patients might review radiographs could be key to establishing future training needs for healthcare professionals and how image sharing could be integrated into practice. Method A pilot study in the UK using a survey was distributed to adult participants via the online research platform Prolific. All subjects were without prior professional healthcare experience. Participants reviewed ten radiographs (single projection only) and were asked a two-stage question. Firstly, if the radiograph was ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ and secondly, if they had answered ‘abnormal’, to identify the abnormality from a pre-determined list featuring generic terms for pathologies. Results 50 participants completed the survey. A mean of 65.8% of participants were able to correctly identify if radiographs were normal or abnormal. Results in relation to the identification of a pathology were not as positive, but still notable with a mean of 46.4% correctly identifying abnormalities. Qualitative data demonstrated that members of the public are enthralled with reviewing radiographs and intrigued to understand their performance in identifying abnormalities. Conclusion In the pilot, members of the public could identify if a radiograph is normal or abnormal to a reasonable standard. Further detailed interpretation of images requires supportive intervention. This pilot study suggests that patients can participate in image sharing as part of their care. Image sharing may be beneficial to the therapeutic relationship, aiding patient understanding and enhancing consultations between healthcare professional and patient. Further research is indicated

Postoperative continuous positive airway pressure to prevent pneumonia, re-intubation, and death after major abdominal surgery (PRISM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Respiratory complications are an important cause of postoperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) administered immediately after major abdominal surgery could prevent postoperative morbidity. Methods: PRISM was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 70 hospitals across six countries. Patients aged 50 years or older who were undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive CPAP within 4 h of the end of surgery or usual postoperative care. Patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm with inbuilt concealment. The primary outcome was a composite of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death within 30 days after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received CPAP. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56012545. Findings: Between Feb 8, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, 4806 patients were randomly assigned (2405 to the CPAP group and 2401 to the usual care group), of whom 4793 were included in the primary analysis (2396 in the CPAP group and 2397 in the usual care group). 195 (8\ub71%) of 2396 patients in the CPAP group and 197 (8\ub72%) of 2397 patients in the usual care group met the composite primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1\ub701 [95% CI 0\ub781-1\ub724]; p=0\ub795). 200 (8\ub79%) of 2241 patients in the CPAP group had adverse events. The most common adverse events were claustrophobia (78 [3\ub75%] of 2241 patients), oronasal dryness (43 [1\ub79%]), excessive air leak (36 [1\ub76%]), vomiting (26 [1\ub72%]), and pain (24 [1\ub71%]). There were two serious adverse events: one patient had significant hearing loss and one patient had obstruction of their venous catheter caused by a CPAP hood, which resulted in transient haemodynamic instability. Interpretation: In this large clinical effectiveness trial, CPAP did not reduce the incidence of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death after major abdominal surgery. Although CPAP has an important role in the treatment of respiratory failure after surgery, routine use of prophylactic post-operative CPAP is not recommended

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use