A Rare Case of Drug-induced Vasculitis in Out-patient Department

Drug-induced vasculitis can be defined as inflammation of blood vessels triggered by a spectrum of drugs. It presents not only with a localized skin rash but also may involve the internal organ systems, including the gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, lungs, central nervous system, and joints. Here, we report the case of a 60-year-old woman who developed purpuric pruritic rashes on bilateral lower limbs and buttocks after the ingestion of sulphasalazine. The patient took the prescribed regimen for 14 days while experiencing an adverse drug reaction. At the follow-up visit, the patient was admitted and treated with methylprednisolone monotherapy with 32 mg/day for the first 3 days and after that, methylprednisolone 16 mg for the next 3 days. The rashes resolved after 6 days. Clinicians should ascertain the patient knowledge of how and when to obtain urgent care as the patient may experience ill effects after taking prescribed treatment. Timely advice may save patients’ costs of admission and treatment to manage adverse events.

Attitudes toward pharmacogenetics in patients undergoing CYP2C19 testing following percutaneous coronary intervention

Aim: Patient knowledge and attitudes toward pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing may impact adoption of clinical testing. Methods: Questionnaires regarding knowledge, attitudes and ethics of PGx testing were distributed to 504 patients enrolled in the ADAPT study conducted at two urban hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Responses were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: 311 completed the survey (62% response rate). 74% were unaware of PGx testing, but 79% indicated using PGx results to predict medication efficacy was important. In a multivariable model, higher education level (p = 0.031) and greater genetics knowledge (p < 0.001) were associated with more positive attitudes toward PGx testing. Conclusion: Greater patient knowledge of genetics was associated with a more positive attitude toward PGx testing, indicating that educational strategies aimed at increasing genetics knowledge may enhance adoption of PGx testing in the clinic.

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality as Promoters of Better Health Literacy

The present study aims to give insights on how to support patient literacy using AR/VR online solutions and effective communication. The future of healthcare is previewed to be human-centric and use a personalised approach to patient treatment. The study confirms AR/VR patient usage is an emerging topic, when compared with other AR/VR health applications. The analysed solutions which had online information were overall mature and accomplished communication to public. The AR/VR solutions intrinsically help in having a clearer communication; they support assertiveness and positivity and can be a literacy promoter. It is recommended to increase AR/VR patient usage and communication, to promote public/patient knowledge and adoption, with advantages to the patient literacy and healthcare system. The solution usage is relevant to educate public/patients and empower self-care. With correct adoption and scale, it can be an enabler to help reduce pressure in healthcare systems.

Assessment of Knowledge on Hemodialysis among Renal Patients

Patient knowledge about hemodialysis is important for effective self-management behaviors. The aim of the present study was to assess the knowledge on hemodialysis among renal patients in selected hospitals of Bhopal. The research design selected for this study was descriptive in nature. The target population for this study was renal patients and the method of sampling was purposive sampling. The sample size was 50. A self-structured questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge and the study findings revealed that knowledge of renal patients regarding hemodialysis was inadequate.

Why Do We Need Maths in Medicine?

Maths is a crucial part of medicine. All the graphs, equations, statistics, and general maths we learn at school help us to understand important aspects of human and veterinary medicine, biology, and science in general. People always think that biology and chemistry are important for doctors, nurses, midwives, scientists, and all the other people involved in medicine and healthcare-related jobs, but in fact maths is also vital. So, whether you are thinking of becoming a doctor, hoping to invent medical technologies, or just wishing to understand treatments you get as a patient, understanding the maths behind medicine is crucial. This article explores how we check whether someone has a disease such as coronavirus or heart disease, how we predict and measure how many people will be affected by various diseases, and how maths is used to treat patients and prevent the spread of contagious diseases. While people are generally aware that sciences like biology and chemistry are important for jobs in the medical field, many may not realize that maths is also vital for most of these jobs. This article looks at some of the ways we use maths in medicine. If you want to become a doctor, veterinary surgeon, nurse, midwife, medical scientist, or to have any job related to healing people and animals, or even if you just want to be an informed patient, knowledge of maths is quite important!

Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability

BackgroundRecent evidence suggests that the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic patients. To date, there is no research on usability and perception of FIT for these patients.AimTo measure variation in attitudes and perception of FIT in patients with suspected CRC symptoms.Design & settingCross sectional survey of a sub-set of participants of the NICE FIT study.MethodA questionnaire was co-developed with patients covering four themes: FIT feasibility, faecal aversion, patient knowledge and future intentions, on a Likert scale. Questionnaire and FIT kits were sent to patients with suspected CRC symptoms participating in the NICE FIT study. Logistic regression explored differences in patients’ test perception by ethnicity, language, age, location, deprivation, FIT use and previous experience.Results1151 questionnaires were analysed; 90.2% of patients found faecal collection straightforward, (95% CI 88.3%–91.8%), 76.3% disagreed FIT was unhygienic (95% CI 73.7%–78.6%), 78.1% preferred FIT to colonoscopy (95% CI 75.6%–80.4%). Preference for FIT over colonoscopy was weaker in patients aged 40–64 than those over 65 years (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43–0.84). Intention to use FIT again was stronger in patients who successfully used FIT than those unsuccessful (OR 11.08; 95% CI 2.74–44.75) and white compared to non-white patients (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.32–7.75).ConclusionsWhile most patients found FIT practical and hygienic, perception differences were found. Strategies to engage patients with more negative FIT perception should underpin symptomatic FIT pathways.

Perceived provider barriers to collecting and documenting a complete family history in a statewide oncology consortium.

221 Background: A complete family history is essential in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes. Fewer than 40% of patients with cancer have a complete family history documented in their medical record. As part of a larger study of patient- and provider-focused interventions for increasing genetic testing, we conducted a survey of provider barriers to collecting and documenting a complete family history in a statewide, physician-led quality consortium of nearly all medical and gynecologic oncologists in Michigan. Methods: A novel survey instrument was created by adapting existing literature and clinician input. Surveys were mailed to medical and gynecologic oncologists with follow up electronic surveys sent to non-respondents. Questions addressed patient-specific barriers as well as known constraints faced by oncologists. Each barrier was rated from low to high using a 10-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations (SD), were calculated. Results: Of 317 surveys sent, 194 (61.2%) were returned. Oncologists rated constraints on their time lower than lack of patient knowledge and understanding of their family history and its importance as a barrier. Open-ended responses indicated that the processes of collecting a family history (e.g. templates for collecting family history that omit age at diagnosis) and patients being overwhelmed at the time of consultation also interfered with collecting a complete family history. Conclusions: Oncologists perceive patient knowledge of their family history, including the ages of affected family members, and understanding of its importance as barriers to completion and documentation of a family history. Explaining the importance of the family history to patients, prompting new patients to provide their family history, and improving the process, including the timing of collection, may increase the proportion of oncology patients who have a complete family history collected and documented.[Table: see text]