Search

Introduction: During the COVID-19 epidemic in Singapore, there was an urgent demand to train more nurses within a short timeframe to perform the Water Swallow Test (WST). The previous training model involved training with actual patients and was time-consuming. Hence, the model was revamped and standardised patients (SPs) were engaged for nurses' training. This study further investigated nurses' feedback about the new training model and compared the efficiency and learner-reported outcomes of the previous and new models. Methods: Nurses who completed WST training from January 2018 to July 2020 were enrolled. Training records were accessed to determine the number of nurses trained under the previous and new models. Nurses were invited to complete post-training evaluation forms and their responses were analysed. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for data analysis. Results: Under the previous model, 52 nurses were trained over 2 years, whereas under the new model, 112 nurses were trained over two months. From the evaluation form responses, the majority of nurses trained under the new model agreed that they achieved the learning objectives and were confident in performing the WST. There was also no significant difference (p>0.05) found between learner-reported outcomes for both training models. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that the new model that engaged SPs was more efficient in training more nurses. Nurses were also satisfied with the new training model, which achieved similar learner-reported outcomes as the previous model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the real estate exposure of listed companies in Singapore where non-real estate companies are classified by their real estate asset intensity. Linkage between real estate exposure and various industries; Arbitrage Pricing Theory model for equity real estate investment trust returns; Real estate asset intensity as a proxy for real estate exposure.

Introduction: There have been few studies on public trust in doctors and healthcare systems and this is the first in Singapore., Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in Redhill in January 2005. Citizens or Permanent Residents aged > or =18 years were randomly selected, one per household to avoid cluster bias, and 361 participated (response rate 68.7%). An interview administered questionnaire included 3 questionnaires measuring public trust: "Interpersonal Trust in Physicians Scale" for primary care doctors; "Trust in Physicians Generally Scale" for the medical profession; and "Trust in Healthcare System Scale" for the Healthcare System. Questions were answered on a Likert scale: 1. Strongly Disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neutral, 4. Agree, 5. Strongly Agree. Individual transformed scores of trust (range, 0 to 100) were equally divided into 5 categories with their average being the transformed mean., Results: Trust in primary care doctors (mean 59.7) had proportions (prevalence rates) of: very low 0.3%, low 2.5%, neutral 40.4%, high 54.0%, and very high 2.8%. Trust in the medical profession (mean 61.8) had proportions of: very low 1.0%, low 7.7%, neutral 33.7%, high 47.0%, and very high 10.5%. Trust in the healthcare system (mean 61.5) had proportions of: very low 0.5%, low 4.1%, neutral 40.0%, high 48.7%, and very high 6.7%. For areas of the healthcare system, proportions of high/very high trust were: "Healthcare Providers' Expertise" (70.8%), "Quality of Care" (61.5%), "Patient Focus of Providers" (58.7%), "Information Supply and Communication by Care Providers" (52.3%), "Quality of Cooperation" (43.3%), and Policies of the Healthcare System" (24.6%)., Conclusions: While low proportions had low/very low trust, the high proportions with neutral trust and the rather low level of trust in "Policies of the Healthcare System" are causes for concern.