Search

Background: One of the most important effective factors in increasing patient satisfaction and improving health and treatment results is proper communication between physician and nurse, and the patient. The present study was conducted with the aim of determining the relationship between the communication skills of the medical staff and patient’s safety culture. Methods: This was an analytical study conducted among 277 working medical staff including nurses, paramedics, full-time geographical employment doctors and anesthesia, and operating room technicians in Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd by stratified random sampling in 2022. The instrument used was the safety culture standard questionnaire made by the health care quality and research agency and communication skills of Barton J. Data analysis was done with SPSS 25 software, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and multiple linear regression tests. Results: The overall mean and standard deviation of patient safety culture was 3.04 ± 0.23, which indicates the average status of safety culture in the studied hospital, and the overall mean of communication skills among medical staff was 3.36 ± 0.40. Which reports a relatively strong level of this skill. The results of linear regression showed that 2 components of communication skills (listening and feedback) have a positive and significant effect on the improvement of patient safety culture, so that they are able to explain 33 percent of the variance of patient safety culture changes. Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, the communication skills of the medical staff have a significant effect on patient's safety culture. Therefore, in order to improve the patient’s safety culture among them, special attention should be paid to communication skills because effective communication is considered a vital element in effective care, and in the medical system it has a significant effect on the quality of care and consequently increases the satisfaction of patients.

Introduction: The present study aimed to evaluate the results of doing Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) and inguinal mesh herniorrhaphy in a single session versus doing them in two separate sessions. Methods: In a randomized clinical trial from 2017 to 2020, 84 patients with inguinal hernia and BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) were selected and categorized randomly into two separated groups. TURP and mesh herniorrhaphy were done in a single operation in group I. In group II, into TURP was done at first, and then, three months later, in another admission, inguinal hernia repair was done. Results: Mean duration of operation was 63.04±6.8 minutes in group I and 77.2±8.5minutes in group II (p-value

Coronavirus disease-2019, also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was a disaster in 2020. Accurate and early diagnosis of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is still essential for health policymaking. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been performed as the operational gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. We aimed to design and implement a reliable COVID-19 diagnosis method to provide the risk of infection using demographics, symptoms and signs, blood markers, and family history of diseases to have excellent agreement with the results obtained by the RT-PCR and CT-scan. Our study primarily used sample data from a 1-year hospital-based prospective COVID-19 open-cohort, the Khorshid COVID Cohort (KCC) study. A sample of 634 patients with COVID-19 and 118 patients with pneumonia with similar characteristics whose RT-PCR and chest CT scan were negative (as the control group) (dataset 1) was used to design the system and for internal validation. Two other online datasets, namely, some symptoms (dataset 2) and blood tests (dataset 3), were also analyzed. A combination of one-hot encoding, stability feature selection, over-sampling, and an ensemble classifier was used. Ten-fold stratified cross-validation was performed. In addition to gender and symptom duration, signs and symptoms, blood biomarkers, and comorbidities were selected. Performance indices of the cross-validated confusion matrix for dataset 1 were as follows: sensitivity of 96% [confidence interval, CI, 95%: 94–98], specificity of 95% [90–99], positive predictive value (PPV) of 99% [98–100], negative predictive value (NPV) of 82% [76–89], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 496 [198–1,245], area under the ROC (AUC) of 0.96 [0.94–0.97], Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of 0.87 [0.85–0.88], accuracy of 96% [94–98], and Cohen's Kappa of 0.86 [0.81–0.91]. The proposed algorithm showed excellent diagnosis accuracy and class-labeling agreement, and fair discriminant power. The AUC on the datasets 2 and 3 was 0.97 [0.96–0.98] and 0.92 [0.91–0.94], respectively. The most important feature was white blood cell count, shortness of breath, and C-reactive protein for datasets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The proposed algorithm is, thus, a promising COVID-19 diagnosis method, which could be an amendment to simple blood tests and screening of symptoms. However, the RT-PCR and chest CT-scan, performed as the gold standard, are not 100% accurate.

Background: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEinhs) may deteriorate or improve the clinical manifestations in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. A comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the association of ARBs/ACEinhs and hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (HMGRis) with clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Materials and Methods: From April 4 to June 2, 2020, 659 patients were categorized according to whether they were taking ARB, ACEinh, or HMGRi drugs or none of them. Demographic variables, clinical and laboratory tests, chest computed tomography findings, and intensive care unit-related data were analyzed and compared between the groups. Results: The ARB, ACEinh, and HMGRi groups significantly had lower heart rate (P < 0.05). Furthermore, a lower percent of O2 saturation (89.34 ± 7.17% vs. 84.25 ± 7.00%; P = 0.04) was observed in the ACEis group than non-ACEinhs. Mortality rate and the number of intubated patients were lower in patients taking ARBs, ACEinhs, and HMGRis, although these differences failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Our findings present clinical data on the association between ARBs, ACEinhs, and HMGRis and outcomes in hospitalized, hypertensive COVID-19 patients, implying that ARBs/ACEinhs are not associated with the severity or mortality of COVID-19 in such patients.