Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteriuria as a Predictor of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia. Results of a Retrospective Cohort Study

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (SA-BSI) is an infection with increasing morbidity and mortality. Concomitant Staphylococcus aureus bacteriuria (SABU) frequently occurs in patients with SA-BSI. It is considered as either a sign of exacerbation of SA-BSI or a primary source in terms of urosepsis. The clinical implications are still under investigation. In this study, we investigated the role of SABU in patients with SA-BSI and its effect on the patients' mortality. We performed a retrospective cohort study that included all patients in our university hospital (Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin) between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2017. We included all patients with positive blood cultures for Staphylococcus aureus who had a urine culture 48 h before or after the first positive blood culture. We identified cases while using the microbiology database and collected additional demographic and clinical parameters, retrospectively, from patient files and charts. We conducted univariate analyses and multivariable Cox regression analysis to evaluate the risk factors for in-hospital mortality. 202 patients met the eligibility criteria. Overall, 55 patients (27.5%) died during their hospital stay. Cox regression showed SABU (OR 2.3), Pitt Bacteremia Score (OR 1.2), as well as moderate to severe liver disease (OR 2.1) to be independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Our data indicates that SABU in patients with concurrent SA-BSI is a prognostic marker for in-hospital death. Further studies are needed for evaluating implications for therapeutic optimization

SentiTur: Building Linguistic Resources for Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis in the Tourism Sector

The use of linguistic resources beyond the scope of language studies, i.e. commercial purposes, has become commonplace since the availability of massive amounts of data and the development of tools to process them. An interesting focus on these materials is provided by Sentiment Analysis (SA) tools and methodologies, which attempt to identify the polarity or semantic orientation of a text, i.e., its positive, negative, or neutral value. Two main approaches have been made in this sense, one based on complex machine-learning algorithms and the other relying principally on lexical knowledge (Taboada et al., 2011). Lingmotif is an example of lexicon-based SA tool offering polarity classification and other related metrics, together with an analysis of the target segments evaluated (Moreno-Ortiz, 2017). Sentiment has been shown to be domain-specific to a large extent (Choi & Cardie, 2008) and it is therefore necessary to study and describe how sentiment is expressed not only in general language, but also in specialized domains. The availability of annotated, domain-specific corpora could greatly enhance the capacity of SA tools. Furthermore, the demand for a more fine-grained approach requires the identification of specific domain terminology, allowing the recognition of target terms associated with the polarity (Liu, 2012). Most available SA corpora are annotated at the document level, which allows systems to be trained to return the overall orientation of the text. However, more detail is necessary: what aspects exactly are being praised or criticized? This type SA is known as Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA), and attempts to extract more fined-grained knowledge. ABSA has attracted the attention of recent SemEval shared-tasks (Pontiki et al., 2015)

General principles of Code of administrative procedure after amendment of 2017

This article refers to the amendment of general principles of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The author has presented the scope of modifications made in the Act, including the indication whether it is the introduction of a new legal institution, or complementing the already known solution. Finally, the impact of the changes made or lack thereof on the practice of applying the law has also been indicated.środki własne AutoraAdamiak B., Borkowski J., Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, Warszawa 2014 Dawidowicz W., Ogólne postępowanie administracyjne. Zarys systemu, Warszawa 1962 Dawidowicz W., Postępowanie administracyjne. Zarys wykładu, Warszawa 1983 Dawidowicz W., Zarys procesu administracyjnego, Warszawa 1989 Fleszer D., Rogacka-Łukasik A. (red.) Studia administracyjne i cywilne. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Stanisławowi Malarskiemu w 85. rocznicę urodzin, Sosnowiec 2016 Hauser R. (red.), Prawo procesowe administracyjne. System prawa administracyjnego, tom 9, Warszawa 2014 Hauser R., Wierzbowski M. (red.), Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, komentarz do art. 7b, Legalis [dostęp: 10-07-2017 r.] Janowicz Z., Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, Warszawa 1999 Jaśkowska M., Wróbel A., Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, Warszawa 2011 Longchamps F., Problem trwałości decyzji administracyjnej, Państwo i Prawo z. 12, Warszawa 1961 Łaszczyca G., Martysz Cz., Matan A., Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, tom I, Warszawa 2010 Łaszczyca G., Martysz Cz., Matan A., Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, tom II, Warszawa 2010 Majewski K., Kościesza A., Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 30 września 2010 r., sygn. akt: II OSK 1417/09, Roczniki Administracji i Prawa Rok XVI. Zeszyt 2, Sosnowiec 2016 Rozmaryn S., O zasadach ogólnych kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego, Państwo i Prawo nr 12, Warszawa 1961 Woś T., Moc wiążąca aktów administracyjnych w czasie, Warszawa 1978 Woś T., Knysiak – Molczyk H., Romańska M., Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. Komentarz, Warszawa 2008 Wronkowska S., Zieliński M., Ziembiński Z., Zasady prawa zagadnienia podstawowe, Warszawa 1974 Zdyb M., Stelmasiak J., Zasady ogólne Kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego. Orzecznictwo Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z komentarzem, Lublin 1992 Judicature of the Supreme Court: The resolution of the Supreme Court of 21 October 2003, ref. no.: I KZP 31/03, Legalis no.: 59213. The resolution of the Supreme Court of 29 October 2004, ref. no.: sygn. akt: III CZP 63/04, Legalis nr 65438. Judgment of the Supreme Court (SN) 9 March 2006, ref. no.: sygn. akt: I CSK 147/05, Legalis no. 100262. Judgment of SN of 2 June 2010, ref. no.: III CSK 204/09, Legalis no. 385375. Judgment of SN of 21 October 2016, ref. no.: IV CSK 26/16, LEX no. 2162818. Judgment of SN of 18 November 2016, ref. no.: I CSK 759/15, LEX no. 2276664. Judgment of SN of 16 February2017, ref. no.: I CSK 139/16, LEX no. 2305905. Judgment of SN of 16 February 2017, ref. no.: I CSK 679/15, LEX no. 2281276. Judgment of SN of 30 March 2017, ref. no.: II UK 41/16, LEX no. 2307125. Decision of SN of 23 January 2015, ref. no.: V CZ 98/14, Legalis no. 1231849 Judicature of the Supreme Administrative Court: Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) of 1 July 2009, ref. no.: I OSK 1442/08, Legalis no. 238188. Judgment of NSA of 14 March 2014, ref. no.: II OSK 2536/12, Legalis no. 908768. Judgment of NSA of 29 May 2014, ref. no.: II GSK 677/13, Legalis no. 989916. Judgment of NSA of 9 December 2015, ref. no.: II OSK 926/14, LEX no. 2000046. Judgment of NSA of 13 January 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 994/14, LEX no. 2032863. Judgment of NSA of 24 May 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 1790/14, LEX no. 2082463. Judgment of NSA of 26 August 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 3284/15, LEX no. 2142168. Judgment of NSA of 20 September 2016, ref. no.: II SA/Wa 24/16, LEX no. 2137451. Judgment of NSA of 22 September 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 3002/13, LEX no. 2207073. Judgment of NSA of 30 September 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 1152/16, LEX no. 2241225. Judgment of NSA of 4 October 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 925/15, LEX no. 2168126. Judgment of NSA of 11 October 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 808/15, LEX no. 2169200. Judgment of NSA of 11 October 2016, ref. no.: I OSK 2303/15, LEX no. 2177196. Judgment of NSA of 18 October 2016, ref. no: II OSK 3385/14, LEX no. 2228421. Judgment of NSA of 20 October 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 65/15, LEX no. 2177618. Judgment of NSA of 26 October 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 132/15, LEX no.2177589. Judgment of NSA of 4 November 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 157/15, LEX no. 2271420. Judgment of NSA of 8 November 2016, ref. no.: I FSK 933/15, LEX no. 2177131. Judgment of NSA of 9 November 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 317/15, LEX no. 2190770. Judgment of NSA of 9 November 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 261/15, LEX no. 2230945. Judgment of NSA of 10 November 2016, ref. no.: II GSK 987/15, LEX no. 2305829. Judgment of NSA of 7 December 2016 r, ref. no.: II GSK 916/15, LEX no.2190704. Judgment of NSA of 14 December 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 707/15, LEX no. 2248240. Judgment of NSA of 21 December 2016, ref. no.: II OSK 841/15, LEX no. 2248195. Judgment of NSA of 10 January 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 910/15, LEX no. 2248150. Judgment of NSA of 11 January 2017, ref. no.: II GSK 4228/16, LEX no. 2227162. Judgment of NSA of 27 January 2017, ref. no.: II GSK 1452/15, LEX no. 2268864. Judgment of NSA of 3 February 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 1327/15, LEX no. 2317072. Judgment of NSA of 7 February 2017, ref. no.: II GSK 1409/15, LEX no. 2252679. Judgment of NSA of 7 February 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 1266/15, LEX no. 2271250. Judgment of NSA of 7 February 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 1267/15, LEX no. 2271251. Judgment of NSA of 21 February 2017, ref. no.: I OSK 2694/15, LEX no. 2296496. Judgment of NSA of 21 February 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 172/16, LEX no. 2267796. Judgment of NSA of 24 February 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 1583/15, LEX no. 2292183. Judgment of NSA of 16 March 2017, ref. no.: II GSK 1479/15, LEX no. 2316631. Judgment of NSA of 30 March 2017, ref. no.: II GSK 1953/15, LEX no. 2305568. Judgment of NSA of 14 April 2017 ref. no.: I OSK 1545/15, LEX no. 2289679. Judgment of NSA of 26 April 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 2182/15, LEX no. 2315760. Judgment of NSA of 11 May 2017, ref. no.: II OSK 2283/15, LEX no. 2303846. Judgment of NSA of NSA of 13 June 2017, ref. no.: I OSK 2202/15, LEX nr 2331253. Decision of NSA of 12 October 2011, ref. no.: II FSK 2422/11, Legalis no. 413767. Decision of NSA of 13 September 2012, ref. no.: I GSK 1500/12, LEX no. 1239312. Decision of NSA of 6 March 2013, ref. no.: II GSK 222/13, Legalis no. 919092. Decision of NSA of 11 June 2013, ref. no.: II GSK 937/13, Legalis no. 916555. Decision of NSA of 29 May of 2014, ref. no.: II GSK 727/13, Legalis no. 989919. Judicature of the Voivodeship Administrative Courts: Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA) in Warsaw of 8 November 2005, ref. no.: IV SA/Wa 1648/05, Legalis no. 271630. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 19 January 2007, ref. no.: II SA/Wa 1911/06, Legalis no. 89688. Judgment of WSA in Krakow of 18 June 2009, ref. no.: II SA/Kr 468/09, Legalis no. 162784 Judgment of WSA in Wrocław of 25 November 2009, ref. no.: I SA/Wr 1536/09, Legalis no. 223199. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 29 April 2014 r., ref. no.: II SA/Wa 2083/13, Legalis no. 1065375. Judgment of WSA in Kielce of 15 May 2014, ref. no.: II SA/Ke 272/14, Legalis no. 963882. Judgment of WSA in Gdańsk of 25 June 2014, ref. no.: I SA/Gd 318/14, Legalis no. 1058458. Judgment of WSA in Poznań of 20 August 2014, ref. no.: IV SA/Po 530/14, LEX no/ 1502858. Judgment of WSA in Lublin of 4 September 2014, ref. no.: III SA/Lu 223/14, Legalis no. 1119147. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 23 March 2015, ref. no.: I SA/Wa 3358/14, Legalis no. 1245144. Judgment of WSA in Poznan of 8 June 2016, ref. no.: III SA/Po 890/15, LEX no, 2087541. Judgment of WSA in Krakow of 1 July 2016, ref. no.: VII SA/Wa 1698/15, Legalis no. 1513406. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 6 July 2016, ref. no.: VII SA/Wa 1895/15, Legalis no. 1513554. Judgment of WSA in Bydgoszcz of 10 August 2016, ref. no.: II SA/Bd 935/15, LEX no. 2152101. Judgment of WSA in Poznan of 31 August 2016, ref. no.: II SA/Po 179/16, LEX nro.2122955. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 29 November 2016, ref. no.: I SA/Wa 1525/16, LEX no.2189619. Judgment of WSA in Szczecin of 30 November 2016, ref. no.: II SA/Sz 999/16, Legalis no. 1547836. Judgment of WSA in Gliwice of 8 November 2017, ref. no.: III SA/Gl 1477/16, LEX no. 2261534. Judgment of WSA in Krakow of 23 March 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Kr 1419/16, LEX no. 2273166. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 30 March 2017, ref. no.: VI SA/Wa 1843/16, LEX no. 2284628. Judgment of WSA in Łodz of 31 March 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Łd 923/16, LEX no. 2276988. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 19 April 2017, ref. no.: VII SA/Wa 1323/16, LEX no. 2287070. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 20 April 2017, ref. no.: VII SA/Wa 1264/16, LEX no. 2280841. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 21 April 2017, ref. no.: VII SA/Wa 485/16, LEX no. 2301452. Judgment of WSA in Gliwice of 24 April 2017, ref. no.: IV SA/Gl 658/16, LEX no. 2285816. Judgment of WSA in Olsztyn of 27 April 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Ol 181/17, LEX no. 2284446. Judgment of WSA in Wrocław of 9 May 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Wr 87/17, LEX no. 2299740. Judgment of WSA in Gliwice of 16 May 2017, ref. no.: IV SA/Gl 1155/16, LEX no. 2294719. Judgment of WSA in Łodz of 17 May 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Łd 205/17, LEX no. 2303817. Judgment of WSA in w Krakow of 17 May 2017, ref. no.: III SA/Kr 345/17, LEX no. 2298882. Judgment of WSA in Gorzow Wielkopolski of 17 May 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Go 1065/16, LEX no. 2293956. Judgment of WSA in Wrocław of 24 May 2017, ref. no.: I SAB/Wr 3/17, LEX no. 2328769. Judgment of WSA in Gorzow Wielkopolski of 24 May 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Go 238/17, LEX no. 2301159. Judgment of WSA in Szczecin of 31 May 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Sz 427/17, LEX no. 2310385. Judgment of WSA in Krakow of 1 June 2017, ref. no.: III SA/Kr 222/17, LEX no. 2309036. Judgment of WSA in Szczecin of 7 June 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Sz 213/17, LEX no. 2308184. Judgment of WSA in Gorzow Wielkopolski of 7 June 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Go 293/17, LEX no. 2309015. Judgment of WSA in Szczecin of 7 June 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Sz 426/17, LEX no. 2314266. Judgment of WSA in Szczecin of 7 June 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Sz 59/17, LEX no.2323230. Judgment of WSA in Gdańsk of 8 June 2017, ref. no.: III SA/Gd 347/17, LEX no. 2314117. Judgment of WSA in Poznan of 8 June 2017, ref. no.: IV SA/Po 314/17, LEX no. 2309865. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 14 June 2017, ref. no.: VI SA/Wa 2642/16, LEX no. 2330047. Judgment of WSA in Warsaw of 23 June 2017, ref. no.: II SA/Wa 1641/16, LEX no. 2313686. Judgment of WSA in Krakow of 13 July 2017, ref. no.: III SA/Kr 35/17, LEX no. 2329823.Judicature of the Common Courts: Judgment of the Common Court in Poznan of 16 January 2013, ref. no.: I ACz 2285/12, LEX no. 1264417. Judgment of the Common Court in Katowice of 11 December 2013, ref. no.: II AKz 714/13, Legalis no. 758138

The financial impact on the Nelson Mandela University as a result of excluding international students from the university funding model

The higher education sector in South Africa (SA) is currently facing financial constraints due to the admission of an increasing number of students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2015, students started protesting, demanding free higher education (OECD, 2017). In addition, the unstable political situation and declining economic conditions prevailing in the country also contributes to increased financial pressure on the higher education sector. Despite these conditions, it is important for higher education institutions (HEIs) in SA to respond decisively and efficiently without sacrificing their obligation to the neighbouring countries and their international duty as set forth in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) protocol (Mello, 2013). The South African government subsidies are an important source of income for universities. The SA government subsidises the international students at the same rate as the South African students (Cilliers, 2017). According to Cilliers (2017), no funding policy is currently available, which excludes the international students from the block grant. The research for this study was guided by the question whether the exclusion of international students’ subsidies from the SA government university funding model could have an adverse financial impact on the Nelson Mandela University. This study was conducted by means of the collection and analysis of secondary quantitative data. The SA government subsidies for the international students enrolled at the Nelson Mandela University for the period 2009 to 2015 were calculated in order to answer the research question. It was concluded that if the international students were excluded from the SA government subsidies, the financial impact on the Nelson Mandela University could be approximately R64,5 million in the 2017 academic year. The outcome of this study is to enable the policymakers, government officials and university administrators to realise the financial impact on the universities if the international students were excluded from the SA government subsidies. Although this study focused on the Nelson Mandela University, the impact of the exclusion of the international students from the SA government university funding model would be significant and negative for the universities, international offices, international students and the plans to internationalise teaching, learning and research at the South African universities

Kernaspekte rondom die voeging van gades en vennote by 'n aansoek vir verpligte sekwestrasie

Core aspects pertaining to the joining of spouses and partners in an application for compulsory sequestration Joining parties as respondents in an application for compulsory sequestration is possible beyond instances where spouses are married in community of property or in cases involving partnerships. The practice in the Gauteng Division of the High Court is that several respondents are not allowed in a joint application for their individual sequestration, unless there is a complete identity of interests. The correctness of this established practice, as supported by the decision in Ferela (Pty) Ltd v Craigie and Others 1980 3 SA 167 (W) and Breetveldt and Others v Van Zyl and Others 1972 1 SA 304 (T), was drawn into question by the findings in Business Partners Ltd v Vecto Trade 87 (Pty) Ltd and Others 2004 5 SA 296 (SE) and Maree and Another v Bobroff and Another [2017] ZAGPJHC (7 March 2017), where the requirement of a “complete identity of interests” was substituted for a “substantial coincidence in the interests” of the respondents. With the 2017 decision in Strutfast (Pty) Ltd v Uys and Another 2017 6 SA 491 (GJ), there is a return to the former practice. The authors analyse this case and contend that it was correctly decided. However, the authors also draw attention to what the Strutfast case did not decide, and postulate that this implies that joining is also possible in alternative situations

When we cannot compare. A commentary on Tariq Jazeel\u27s \u27Singularity. A manifesto for incomparable geographies\u27

Tariq Jazeel\u27s remarks at the 2017 RGS/IBG annual conference and the paper in this issue are set against the backdrop of an ‘Anglophonic and allegorical’ library (Jazeel, this issue, p. 6). For those of us educated in former British colonies as for Mustafa Sa\u27eed—the protagonist of Tayeb Salih\u27s novel—the English study is a familiar space. Though never having seen or been in any such study, in my mind\u27s eye I settle myself comfortably in the armchair in front of the fireplace with a book in hand. Jazeel firmly shakes me awake to notice that the book in my hand like the ones on Sa\u27eed\u27s shelves is in English. Why is this so? To grapple with this question I remove my shoes (to this day I cannot really think with shoes on) and sit up. Of course, bare toes do not belong in a Victorian chair. But surely I may slide down to sit cross‐legged on the rug on the library floor (almost certainly woven in Turkey, North Africa, Central Asia or the Middle East)? Jazeel flags one of the key conundrums of the decolonial imperative: we can neither inhabit a Eurocentric library (comfortably?) nor leave it (uncomfortably?). And by us he means all of us—those who are considered marginal in some way (gendered female, queer, raced, formerly colonized, and more), but also whose subjectivities are dominant or ‘mainstream’ (former colonizers, gendered males, white, able‐bodied, committed to disciplines, etc.)

Propuesta de mejora en el control de existencias para optimizar la determinación del costo de producción en la empresa de Fabricación de Repuestos S. A. - Callao - 2017

En toda empresa sobre todo en una industrial es indispensable tener un buen control de existencias para optimizar la determinación del costo de producción, y a su vez esto hará que la información proporcionada al departamento de contabilidad goce de las garantías de precisión a fin de cumplir con los objetivos de gestión establecidos y se pueda establecer el precio unitario de un producto terminado. Para su mejor exposición y presentación, este trabajo se ha dividido en tres capítulos: El Primer Capítulo, comprende el Planteamiento del Problema: ¿De qué manera una propuesta de mejora en el control de existencias optimizará la determinación del costo de producción en la empresa Fabricación de Repuestos SA en el Callao 2017?, así también como el objetivo: Elaborar una propuesta de mejora en el control de existencias para optimizar la determinación del costo de producción en la empresa Fabricación de Repuestos SA en el Callao, 2017. También contiene la justificación y los objetivos específicos. El Segundo Capítulo, comprende el marco teórico y definición de términos básicos: El Tercer Capítulo, comprende el desarrollo, presentación y el Cuarto Capítulo, comprende discusión de resultados cada uno de los objetivos planteados, las conclusiones y así como las recomendaciones de nuestro trabajo.In every company especially in an industrial it is essential to have a good control of stocks to optimize the determination of the cost of production, and in turn this will make the information provided to the accounting department enjoy the guarantees of The accuracy of meeting the established management objectives and the unit price of a finished product can be established. For its best exhibition and presentation, this work has been divided into three chapters: The first chapter, understands the approach of the problem: in what way a proposal of improvement in the control of stocks to optimize the determination of the cost of production in the company manufacturing of spare parts SA in Callao 2017?, as well as the Objective: To elaborate a proposal of improvement in the control of stocks to optimize the determination of the cost of production in the company manufacturing of spare parts SA in Callao, 2017. It also contains the specific justification and objectives. The second chapter, includes the theoretical framework and definition of basic terms: The third chapter, includes the development, presentation and The Fourth Chapter includes discussion of the results of each of the objectives set, the conclusions and recommendations of our work

Changing priorities in maternal and perinatal health in Gert Sibande District, South Africa

Gert Sibande District is a predominantly rural district in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa (SA), with a population of just over 1.1 million. It has a high prevalence of HIV infection and pregnancy-related hypertensive disease. In 2010 the district was one of the worst-performing health districts in SA, with a maternal mortality ratio of 328.0 per 100 000 births. Various programmes were introduced between 2010 and 2017 to address major causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in the district. The focus has been on HIV-related morbidity, the direct obstetric causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, and health systems strengthening. During the period 2010 - 2017, there was a steady decline in institutional maternal mortality with a drop of 71% in maternal deaths over a period of 6 years, from 328.0 per 100 000 births to 95.0. However, the ratio levelled off in 2016 and 2017, mainly as a result of a changing disease profile. The stillbirth rate showed a decline of 24.4% over a period of 8 years. With perseverance, rapid response and evidence-based strategies it was possible to more than halve the institutional maternal mortality ratio within 6 years. However, with the changing disease profile, conditions such as hypertensive disease in pregnancy should be prioritised and new strategies developed to further reduce maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity

Improving Patient Education on Spinal Anesthesia: An Assessment of a Patient Educational Program

Abstract Spinal Anesthesia (SA) is a common type of anesthesia that is frequently used for surgeries of the lower abdomen, lower extremities, and perineal area. Spinal anesthesia offers fewer side effects and risks than General Anesthesia (GA). Patients usually recover their senses much faster with SA (MedlinePlus, 2017). Some patients often refuse SA due to fears and misconceptions. These misconceptions are related to a lack of education and resources available to patients. It is crucial that anesthesia providers learn to adequately educate patients preoperatively on the use of SA. Anesthesia providers in a community hospital in southern Illinois educated patients preoperatively about the use of SA with a pamphlet and video created by the author. Anesthesia providers who utilized the educational video and pamphlet were given a survey after one month. A total of eight anesthesia providers completed the survey. Five were CRNAs (62%) and three were anesthesiologists (37%). All the participants agreed that the material was at an appropriate reading level for patients and that the method was effective. The majority (62%) of participants found the materials to neither increase nor decrease the time of pre-anesthetic interviewing. A multimodal approach for preoperative education in SA can improve patient knowledge