2 resultados para Non-work related practises
Resumo:
Setting: Psychological stress is increasingly recognised within emergency medicine, given the environmental and clinical stressors associated with the specialism. The current study assessed whether psychological distress is experienced by emergency medical staff and if so, what is the expressed need within this population? Participants: Participants included ambulance personnel, nursing staff, doctors and ancillary support staff within two Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments and twelve ambulance bases within one Trust locality in NI (N = 107). Primary and secondary outcome measures: The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12, Goldberg, 1972, 1978), Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS, Bride, 2004) and an assessment of need questionnaire were completed and explored using mixed method analysis. Results: Results showed elevated levels of psychological distress within each profession except ambulance service clinical support officers (CSOs). Elevated levels of secondary trauma symptomatology were also found; the highest were within some nursing grades and junior doctors. Decreased enjoyment in job over time was significantly associated with higher scores. Analysis of qualitative data identified sources of stress to include low morale. A total of 65% of participants thought that work related stressors had negatively affected their mental health. Participants explored what they felt could decrease psychological distress including improved resources and psychoeducation. Conclusion: There were elevated levels of distress and secondary traumatic stress within this population as well as an expressed level of need, on both systemic and support levels.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of ophthalmologists versus optometrists to correctly classify retinal lesions due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
DESIGN: Randomised balanced incomplete block trial. Optometrists in the community and ophthalmologists in the Hospital Eye Service classified lesions from vignettes comprising clinical information, colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomographic images. Participants' classifications were validated against experts' classifications (reference standard).
SETTING: Internet-based application.
PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmologists with experience in the age-related macular degeneration service; fully qualified optometrists not participating in nAMD shared care.
INTERVENTIONS: The trial emulated a conventional trial comparing optometrists' and ophthalmologists' decision-making, but vignettes, not patients, were assessed. Therefore, there were no interventions and the trial was virtual. Participants received training before assessing vignettes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-correct classification of the activity status of a lesion based on a vignette, compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes-potentially sight-threatening errors, judgements about specific lesion components and participants' confidence in their decisions.
RESULTS: In total, 155 participants registered for the trial; 96 (48 in each group) completed all assessments and formed the analysis population. Optometrists and ophthalmologists achieved 1702/2016 (84.4%) and 1722/2016 (85.4%) correct classifications, respectively (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; p=0.543). Optometrists' decision-making was non-inferior to ophthalmologists' with respect to the prespecified limit of 10% absolute difference (0.298 on the odds scale). Optometrists and ophthalmologists made similar numbers of sight-threatening errors (57/994 (5.7%) vs 62/994 (6.2%), OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.57; p=0.789). Ophthalmologists assessed lesion components as present less often than optometrists and were more confident about their classifications than optometrists.
CONCLUSIONS: Optometrists' ability to make nAMD retreatment decisions from vignettes is not inferior to ophthalmologists' ability. Shared care with optometrists monitoring quiescent nAMD lesions has the potential to reduce workload in hospitals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07479761; pre-results registration.