3 resultados para bacterial communication
Resumo:
Perinatal bacterial infection may be caused by any microorganism colonizing the vaginal tract. Neonatologists and paediatricians are especially concerned about group B Stretpococcus (GBS). However, Enterobactereacea, mainly E.coli and Proteus, are also responsible for infection. GBS screening may be accomplished in over 90% of pregnant women. In our maternity in 2007-2008, 85% of the mothers had been screened. Screening and prophylaxis were responsible for a decreasing incidence of neonatal infection - from 0.6/1000 to 0.15/1000 live births in Portugal, from 2002 to 2007. However there are some difficulties related to screening. In the second Portuguese study 16/57 NB with early-onset infection (28%) were born to “negative” mothers. Several factors illustrate how difficult is to draw national screening policies: a wide range of carrier’s state rate throughout a country - in Portugal from 12% to 30%. The success of any screening policy may also be affected by additional technical and organizational problems. In countries where home delivery is a tradition or a trend intrapartum GBS prophylaxis requires a very well organized assistance.. Moreover factors usually accepted as protective are not so effective. In the Portuguese study 24/57 infected newborns (42%) were delivery by caesarean section. Another subject deals with the workload in the postnatal ward generated by deficient compliance to the guidelines a problem not confirm by a study of our group. Decreasing the importance of GBS, highlight the importance of E. coli in perinatal infection. From the 16 340 registrations of the National Registry 1676 were newborns with mother-related infection. Applying the same reasoning to E.coli as to GBS and Listeria monocytogenes – that is considering all of them are of maternal origin - 6.7% of these infections were due to E. coli, 4.6% to SGB and 0.5% to Listeria monocytogenes. In conclusion screening and prophylaxis may be not the best way to prevent all GBS neonatal infections but by now it is the only available procedure. The other bacteria continue to demand a high suspicion level and immediate intervention.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The detection of psychosocial distress is a significant communication problem in Southern Europe and other countries. Work in this area is hampered by a lack of data. Because not much is known about training aimed at improving the recognition of psychosocial disorders in cancer patients, we developed a basic course model for medical oncology professionals. METHODS: A specific educational and experiential model (12 hours divided into 2 modules) involving formal teaching (ie, journal articles, large-group presentations), practice in small groups (ie, small-group exercises and role playing), and discussion in large groups was developed with the aim of improving the ability of oncologists to detect emotional disturbances in cancer patients (ie, depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorders). RESULTS: A total of 30 oncologists from 3 Southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, and Spain) participated in the workshop. The training course was well accepted by most participants who expressed general satisfaction and a positive subjective perception of the utility of the course for clinical practice. Of the total participants, 28 physicians (93.3%) thought that had they been exposed to this material sooner, they would have incorporated the techniques received in the workshop into their practices; 2 participants stated they would likely have done so. Half of the doctors (n = 15) believed that their clinical communication techniques were improved by participating in the workshop, and the remaining half thought that their abilities to communicate with cancer patients had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model is a feasible approach for oncologists and is easily applicable to various oncology settings. Further studies will demonstrate the effectiveness of this method for improving oncologists skills in recognizing emotional disorders in their patients with cancer.