Search

Aim of the study was to analyse the structure of patients referred for dental treatment in general anaesthesia (GA) and to analyse the triage outcomes.Retrospective chart analysis of patients referred between January 1st 2018 and July 7th 2022 was performed. Following data were registered: age, sex, diagnosis/reason for referral for GA, indication for dental treatment in GA, trisage outcome and waiting time for the GA procedure.Charts of 193 referred in the aforementioned period were analysed. Most common reason for the referral was autism (65/33.7%), cerebral paralysis (29/15%) and mental retardation (27/14%). Indication for dental treatment in GA was found in 156(80.8%) patients while in 37(19.2%) patients no indication for dental treatment in GA was found. Out of the 156 patients who were indicated for dental treatment in GA, 98(62.8%) patients were managed through day-care surgery and 8(5.2%) patients were admitted to hospital. Twenty patients (12.8%) were still waiting for their GA appointment in the time of analysis, 29(18.6%) were lost to follow up and in one (0.6%) patient the anaesthesiologist recommended ambulatory treatment due to increased risk. Out of the 37 patients in whom no indication for the treatment in GA was found, 13(35.2%) had no caries, 16/(43.2%) were referred to paediatric dentist and 8(21.6%) were managed on the initial exam. Median time of waiting for the procedure was 120(10-365) days. Before the COVID-19 pandemics median waiting time was 90(15-300) days, and after the COVID-19 pandemics median waiting time was 135(10-365) days.In the majority of the patients referred for dental treatment in GA, indication for the procedure was established. Majority of the referred patients can be managed through a day- care surgery. COVID-19 pandemics is probably one of the reasons for the increased GA procedure waiting time.

В статье обсуждаются основные положения палеопсихологической теории антропогенеза Б. Ф. Поршнева, выдающегося отечественного историка, социального психолога и антрополога. Одним из самых сложных и до конца не изученных вопросов современной науки является загадка происхождения человека современного типа. Несмотря на огромные усилия, предпринимаемые для ее решения несколькими поколениями исследователей, эта проблема остается большим белым пятном в системе человеческого знания. Важным этапом представляются исследования Б. Ф. Поршнева, главная заслуга которого в исследовании проблемы антропогенеза состоит в том, что его теория происхождения современного человека в контексте современных научных знаний, по-видимому, единственная не нуждается в гипотезе о творце. Теория Поршнева преодолевает препятствия, которые не позволяют подойти к правильному решению проблемы. Это, по Поршневу, три главных постулата: миф об охоте на крупных животных как основном занятии человеческого предка; миф об «изобретении» им огня; убежденность в том, что эволюционная форма, предшествовавшая Homo sapiens, вымерла и исчезла с лица Земли тотчас после появления последнего. Преодолев эти заблуждения, можно формулировать новый поход к исследованию проблемы. В статье анализируются психологические предпосылки появления человека современного типа, основанные на данных современных палеоантропологических и палеогенетических исследований. Описывается мотивационная модель видовой неоднородности человека, в методологическом плане опирающаяся на палеопсихологическую теорию антропогенеза Б. Ф. Поршнева, теорию ценностно-потребностной сферы личности и концепцию видизма. Формирование в процессе антропогенеза четырех видов рода Homo Sapiens объясняется психологическим развитием человека: появлением новых, чисто человеческих потребностей и принципиально новых способов их удовлетворения – второй и третьей сигнальных систем. Концепция видовой неоднородности современного человека представляет собой гипотетическую реконструкцию антропогенеза, но не использует объяснительные креационистские модели., In the article are discussed basic provisions of the paleopsychologic theory of anthropogenesis by B. F. Porshnev, an outstanding Russian historian, social psychologist and anthropologist. One of the most difficult and not completely investigated questions of the modern science is the riddle of origin of the modern type person. Despite the huge efforts made for its solution by several generations of researchers, this problem remains to be a black page in the system of human knowledge. The important stage seems to be the researches by B. F. Porshnev, whose principal merit in the research of the problem of anthropogenesis consists in his theory of origin of the modern person in the context of the modern scientific knowledge, it is the only one which does need the hypothesis on the creator. Porshnev's theory overcomes hindrances which do not allow us to approach the right solution. These are, due to Porshnev, three principal postulates: the myth about hunting for large animals as major activity of the human ancestor; the myth about «invention» of fire by him; the conviction is that the evolutionary form preceding Homo sapiens died out and disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after appearance the latter one. Having overcome these delusions, it is possible to formulate a new approach to the problem research. In the article the psychological premises of appearance of the modern type person are analyzed basing on data of the modern paleoantropologic and paleogenetic researches. The motivational model of specific non-uniformity of the person is described, which in the methodological plan is guided by B. F. Porshnev’s paleopsyhologic theory of anthropogenesis, the theory of the valuable-need sphere of the personality and the concept of speciesism. Formation in the course of anthropogenesis of four types of the Homo Sapiens sort is explained by psychological development of the person: appearance of new, purely human needs and essentially new methods of their satisfaction – the second and third signal systems. The concept of specific non-uniformity of the modern person represents hypothetical reconstruction of anthropogenesis, but does not use explanatory creationistic models.

Our study aimed to assess the psychometric validity of the conceptual disorganization item and other items of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for detecting disorganized speech in patients with schizophrenia. We included 357 schizophrenia patients with disorganized speech and 1082 without disorganized speech from the survey centers in India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan, using the data from the Research on Asian Psychotropic Patterns for Antipsychotics (REAP-AP) study. After adjusting the effects of confounding variables, a binary logistic regression model was fitted to identify BPRS items independently associated with disorganized speech. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to identify optimum cut-off scores and their sensitivities and specificities for detecting disorganized speech. After adjusting the effects of confounding variables, the fitted binary logistic regression model indicated that conceptual disorganization (P < 0.0001), uncooperativeness (P = 0.010) and excitement (P = 0.001) were independently associated with disorganized speech. The ROC curve revealed that the conceptual disorganization item could accurately detect disorganized speech in patients with schizophrenia both separately and in combination with uncooperativeness and excitement. The subscale for conceptual disorganization, uncooperativeness and excitement items in the BPRS is a promising psychometric tool for detecting disorganized speech.

Only few studies have compared the psychopathological features in first episode psychosis (FEP) and chronic schizophrenia (CS) patients. The aim of our study was to compare sociodemographic and clinical aspects of FEP and CS inpatients using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) in order to better characterize FEP. We did not find significant socio-demographic differences between the two groups apart from age and nationality. About PANSS we found that conceptual disorganization, poor rapport and lack of insight items scores were significantly higher in patients with FEP. Related to BPRS the items of somatic concerns, grandiosity and motor hyperactivity were significantly higher in the CS group; uncooperativeness was significantly higher in FEP group. Our study offers a characterization of FEP patients that confirms evidence and adds some information from the current literature. FEP patients seem to be more uncooperative with a worse interpersonal empathy and insight into the illness than CS patients; this could reduce their compliance with the treatment.