Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines for Preoperative Testing in Women Undergoing Gynecologic Surgery

2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 694-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caryn M. St. Clair ◽  
Monjri Shah ◽  
Elisabeth J. Diver ◽  
Sharyn N. Lewin ◽  
William M. Burke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gynecologic Surgery ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Preoperative Testing ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines

scholarly journals Colorectal Endometriosis: Ample data without definitive recommendations.

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
G.N. Moawad ◽  
J.S. Klebanoff ◽  
N. Habib ◽  
S. Bendifallah
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Gynecologic Surgery ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Colorectal Endometriosis ◽  
Operative Complications ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines ◽  
Preoperative Work Up ◽  
Work Up

The preoperative work-up and optimal surgical approach to colorectal endometriosis is a highly studied topic lacking definitive recommendations. Synthesis of the available data can be extremely challenging for surgeons due to the heterogeneity of existing comparisons, a variety of studied surgical outcomes, and a predominant focus on operative complications. While these considerations are extremely important for surgeons performing such complex gynecologic surgery there is still much to be desired with regards to evidence based guidelines for the preoperative assessment and surgical technique for colorectal endometriosis. Having an established guideline stating in which clinical situations endometriosis surgeons should performing rectovaginal shaving, versus discoid excision, versus segmental resection would be extremely important for all pelvic surgeons, even those operating in high-volume centers dedicated to the surgical management of complex endometriosis. This perspective highlights the shortcomings of the available data and attempts to create an algorithm surgeons can follow when performing surgery for colorectal endometriosis. This algorithm is based on our expert opinion after synthesising available data.

scholarly journals PIN156 Knowledge of Intensive Care Nurses about the Evidence-Based Guidelines of Preventing Centralvenous Catheter Related Infection

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S569-S570
Author(s):  
V. Pacsai ◽  
B. Szabó ◽  
E. Kalamár-Birinyi ◽  
L. Horváth ◽  
I. Boncz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Catheter Related Infection ◽  
Intensive Care Nurses ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines

scholarly journals Eye Protection in ENT Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OTO Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 2473974X2110104
Author(s):  
Jia Hui Ng ◽  
Dan Daniel ◽  
Anton Sadovoy ◽  
Constance Ee Hoon Teo
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Degree Of Contamination ◽  
Eye Protection ◽  
Fluorescent Microscope ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines ◽  
Care Worker

Objectives There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines with regard to eye protection for aerosol-generating procedures in otolaryngology practice. In addition, some recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) is not compatible with commonly used ENT equipment. This study aims to investigate the degree of eye protection that commonly used PPE gives. Study Design Simulation model. Setting Simulation laboratory. Methods A custom-built setup was utilized to simulate the clinical scenario of a patient cough in proximity of a health care worker. A system that sprays a xanthan-fluorescein mixture was set up and calibrated to simulate a human cough. A mannequin with cellulose paper placed on its forehead, eyes, and mouth was fitted with various PPE combinations and exposed to the simulated cough. The degree of contamination on the cellulose papers was quantified with a fluorescent microscope able to detect aerosols ≥10 µm. Results When no eye protection was worn, 278 droplets/aerosols reached the eye area. The use of the surgical mask with an attached upward-facing shield alone resulted in only 2 droplets/aerosols reaching the eye area. In this experiment, safety glasses and goggles performed equally, as the addition of either brought the number of droplets/aerosols reaching the eye down to 0. Conclusion When used with an upward-facing face shield, there was no difference in the eye protection rendered by safety goggles or glasses in this study. Safety glasses may be considered a viable alternative to safety goggles in aerosol-generating procedures.

scholarly journals Young Adult Cancer Survivorship: Recommendations for Patient Follow-up, Exercise Therapy, and Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott C Adams ◽  
Jennifer Herman ◽  
Iliana C Lega ◽  
Laura Mitchell ◽  
David Hodgson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Late Effects ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adult ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Pediatric Cancer Survivors ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Care Guidelines ◽  
Young Adult Cancer ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines

Abstract Survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers (AYAs) often live 50 to 60 years beyond their diagnosis. This rapidly growing cohort is at increased risk for cancer- and treatment-related late effects that persist for decades into survivorship. Recognition of similar issues in pediatric cancer survivors has prompted the development of evidence-based guidelines for late effects screening and care. However, corresponding evidence-based guidelines for AYAs have not been developed. We hosted an AYA survivorship symposium for a large group of multidisciplinary AYA stakeholders (approximately 200 were in attendance) at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON) to begin addressing this disparity. The following overview briefly summarizes and discusses the symposium’s stakeholder-identified high-priority targets for late effects screening and care, and highlights knowledge gaps to direct future research in the field of AYA survivorship. This overview, while not exhaustive, is intended to stimulate clinicians to consider these high-priority screening and care targets when seeing survivors in clinical settings and, ultimately, support the development of evidence-based ‘late effects’ screening and care guidelines for AYAs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document