			Home About us Contact

General Surgical Wards (general + surgical_ward)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Surgical site infection rate and associated risk factors in elective general surgery at a public sector medical university in Pakistan

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL, Issue 1 2008
Ahmed Khan Sangrasi
Abstract This prospective study aimed to determine the surgical site infection (SSI) rate and associated risk factors was carried in a general surgical ward at Liaquat University Hospital Jamshoro. A total of 460 patients requiring elective general surgery from July 2005 to June 2006 were included in this study. All four surgical wound categories were included. Primary closure was employed in all cases. Patients were followed up to 30th day postoperatively. All cases were evaluated for postoperative fever, redness, swelling of wound margins and collection of pus. Cultures were taken from all the cases with any of the above finding. Mean ± SD age of the patients was 38·8 ± 17·4 years with male to female ratio of 1·5:1. The overall rate of surgical site infection was 13·0%. The rate of wound infection was 5·3% in clean operations, 12·4% in clean-contaminated, 36·3% in contaminated and 40% in dirt-infected cases. Age, use of surgical drain, duration of operation and wound class were significant risk factors for increased surgical site infection (P < 0·05). Postoperative hospital stay was double in cases who had surgical site infection. Sex, haemoglobin level and diabetes were not statistically significant risk factors (P > 0·05). In conclusion, surgical site infection causes considerable morbidity and economic burden. The routine reporting of SSI rates stratified by potential risk factors associated with increased risk of infection is highly recommended. [source]

An evaluation of pharmacist-written hospital discharge prescriptions on general surgical wards

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACY PRACTICE, Issue 3 2005
Mohamed H. Rahman Principal pharmacist, surgical services
Objective To evaluate the quality of pharmacist-written hospital discharge prescriptions (DPs) in comparison to those written by doctors. Method The study was carried out in two, week-long phases on the general surgical wards in one UK hospital. In phase 1, doctors wrote the DPs, which were then checked by the ward pharmacist. In phase 2, ward pharmacists wrote the DPs which were then checked by the patient's junior doctor. In both phases, the clinical dispensary pharmacist made their routine check of the prescription prior to dispensing. All interventions were recorded on a pre-piloted data collection form. Key findings In phase 1, doctors wrote 128 DPs; in phase 2, pharmacists wrote 133 DPs. There were 755 interventions recorded during phase 1 in comparison to 76 during phase 2. In phase 1, transcription errors accounted for 118 interventions, 149 were due to ambiguity/illegibility; 488 amendments were to facilitate the dispensing process e.g. clarification of patient, medical and drug details, and dosage form discrepancies. In phase 2, transcription errors accounted for one intervention, 50 interventions were due to ambiguities or illegibility; 25 amendments were to facilitate the dispensing process. During phase 2, doctors made 10 minor alterations to pharmacist-written DPs. On 52 occasions during phase 2, the ward pharmacist had to clarify, prior to writing the DP, either the dose of a drug, or, whether a drug should be continued on discharge, and if so, for what duration. Conclusion Pharmacist-written DPs contained considerably fewer errors, omissions and unclear information in comparison to doctor-written DPs. Doctors recorded no significant alterations when validating pharmacist-written DPs. [source]

Thoracic epidural anaesthesia and analgesia: United Kingdom practice

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 9 2000
F. O'Higgins
Background: Thoracic epidural analgesia has become increasingly practised in recent years. Complications are rare but potentially serious and, consequently, careful evaluation is required before undertaking this technique. The practice surrounding this procedure varies widely amongst anaesthetists. Methods: A postal survey to examine the practice of thoracic epidural analgesia was sent to all Royal College of Anaesthetists tutors in the United Kingdom. Results: Responses were received from 240 tutors, representing a return rate of 83%. When obtaining consent for thoracic epidural cannulation, 42% of respondents mentioned risk of a dural tap complication and 11% mentioned neurological damage. Fifty percent of respondents performed epidural cannulation following induction of general anaesthesia. The practice of epidural insertion in patients with abnormal coagulation varied, although over 80% of respondents did not consider concurrent treatment with either aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs a contraindication. Sterile precautions for epidural insertion also varied between anaesthetists. Postoperatively, 95% of respondents used an opioid-based bupivacaine solution for epidural infusions, and these were most commonly nursed on general surgical wards (63%). Seventy-eight percent of hospitals provided an acute pain team to review epidural analgesia. Conclusion: In the United Kingdom, there is little consensus in the practice of thoracic epidural analgesia relating to the issues of informed consent, epidural cannulation in patients with deranged clotting and the sterile precautions taken prior to performing epidural insertion. Most respondents use an opioid-based bupivacaine solution to provide postoperative epidural analgesia. Most hospitals in the UK now provide an acute pain service for thoracic epidural follow-up. [source]