Treatment before macular grid in patients of diabetic macular edema

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab and posterior subtenons triamcinolone acetate in the management of diffuse diabetic macular edema (DME) and to evaluate their efficacy as an adjunct to modified grid laser in management of DME. DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of 30 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients attending the medical ophthalmology clinic at a tertiary care hospital were included in the study. These 30 patients were divided into two groups. Group I (15 eyes) received intravitreal bevacizumab followed by modified grid photocoagulation 2 weeks after injection. Group II (15 eyes) received posterior subtenons triamcinolone followed by modified grid photocoagulation 2 weeks after injection. Each patient in our study was followed up at 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months after the initial injection to record the central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: Both the combination therapies have efficacy to reduce the CMT (P = 0.001). The percentage fall in CMT was greater in bevacizumab + laser group, and there was a significant difference in the CMT values at the end of the study in the bevacizumab group (P = 0.013). The mean BCVA improved in both the groups and this difference was statistically significant compared to the baseline (P = 0.005). However, there was no statistically significant difference in BCVA between the two groups at the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Both intravitreal bevacizumab and posterior subtenons triamcinolone given as an adjuvant therapy along with modified grid laser are equally efficacious in the reduction of the CMT; however, the percentage fall in the CMT was greater in bevacizumab + laser group, and there was a significant difference in the fall in CMT at all the visits as compared to a plateau in the fall of CMT in posterior subtenons triamcinolone group

Employee silence in health care: Charting new avenues for leadership and management

Issue Health care management is faced with a basic conundrum about organizational behavior; why do professionals who are highly dedicated to their work choose to remain silent on critical issues that they recognize as being professionally and organizationally significant? Speaking-up interventions in health care achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture that is not supportive. Critical Theoretical Analysis Our understanding of the different types of employee silence is in its infancy, and more ethnographic and qualitative work is needed to reveal the complex nature of silence in health care. We use the sensemaking theory to elucidate how the difficulties to overcoming silence in health care are interwoven in health care culture. Insight/Advance The relationship between withholding information and patient safety is complex, highlighting the need for differentiated conceptualizations of silence in health care. We present three Critical Challenge points to advance our understanding of silence and its roots by (1) challenging the predominance of psychological safety, (2) explaining how we operationalize sensemaking, and (3) transforming the role of clinical leaders as sensemakers who can recognize and reshape employee silence. These challenges also point to how employee silence can also result in a form of dysfunctional professionalism that supports maladaptive health care structures in practice. Practice Implications Delineating the contextual factors that prompt employee silence and encourage speaking up among health care workers is crucial to addressing this issue in health care organizations. For clinical leaders, the challenge is to valorize behaviors that enhance adaptive and deep psychological safety among teams and within professions while modeling the sharing of information that leads to improvements in patient safety and quality of care