Facial attractiveness of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and of controls assessed by laypersons and professionals.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to identify differences in the aesthetic evaluation of profile and frontal photographs of (1) patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate and (2) control patients by laypeople and professionals. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS Left-side profile and frontal photographs of 20 adult patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate (10 men, 10 women, mean age: 20.5 years) and of 10 control patients with a class I occlusion (five men, five women, mean age: 22.1 years) were included in the study. The post-treatment photographs were evaluated by 15 adult laypeople, 14 orthodontists, and 10 maxillofacial surgeons. Each photograph was judged on a modified visual analogue scale (VA S, 0-10; 0 'very unattractive' to 10 'very attractive'). A four-level mixed model was fitted in which the VA S score was the dependent variable; cases, profession, view, and rater were independent variables. RESULTS Compared with laypersons, orthodontists gave higher VA S scores (+0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53, 0.84]; P < 0.001), followed by surgeons (+0.21, 95% CI [0.03, 0.38], P = 0.02). Controls were given significantly higher scores than patients with clefts for profile and frontal photographs (+1.97, 95% CI [1.60; 2.35], P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the scores for the frontal and lateral views (P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.

Organoleptic assessment of halitosis for dental professionals - general recommendations

An organoleptic assessment of an odor is defined as a method that can measure the strength of target odors and expresses the value in terms of a point or number with reference to a pre-defined organoleptic scale. Organoleptic assessments are performed using different scales and are used widely in industry (e.g. for measuring the effectiveness of anti-odor agents), in research (to discover relationships between bad breath and microbiology of the tongue, or the generation of particular volatile compounds), but it is also a prerequisite for the diagnosis of halitosis in individual patients required before directing appropriate treatment. An organoleptic assessment of halitosis patients may be carried out in specialized institutions but--based on the fact that in most cases the odor originates from oral structures--also by dental professionals including general dental practitioners (GDPs). Thus, this paper describes the scientific background for recommendations on how a GDP or dental hygienist or general practitioner with cases of bad breath should use organoleptic methods as a valid approach to assess malodor in patients, with a view to diagnosis and treatment, and subsequent treatment monitoring.

Stochastic Resonance Whole-Body Vibration Improves Postural Control in Health Care Professionals: A Worksite Randomized Controlled Trial

Slip, trip, and fall injuries are frequent among health care workers. Stochastic resonance whole-body vibration training was tested to improve postural control. Participants included 124 employees of a Swiss university hospital. The randomized controlled trial included an experimental group given 8 weeks of training and a control group with no intervention. In both groups, postural control was assessed as mediolateral sway on a force plate before and after the 8-week trial. Mediolateral sway was significantly decreased by stochastic resonance whole-body vibration training in the experimental group but not in the control group that received no training (p < .05). Stochastic resonance whole-body vibration training is an option in the primary prevention of balance-related injury at work.

Predictors of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards family involvement in safety-relevant behaviours: a cross-sectional factorial survey study.

OBJECTIVES To investigate predictors of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) attitudes towards family involvement in safety-relevant behaviours. DESIGN A cross-sectional fractional factorial survey that assessed HCPs' attitudes towards family involvement in two error scenarios relating to hand hygiene and medication safety. Each survey comprised two randomised vignettes that described the potential error, how the family member communicated with the HCP about the error and how the HCP responded to the family member's question. SETTING 5 teaching hospitals in London, the Midlands and York. HCPs were approached on a range of medical and surgical wards. PARTICIPANTS 160 HCPs (73 doctors; 87 nurses) aged between 21 and 65 years (mean 37) 102 were female. OUTCOME MEASURES HCP approval of family member's behaviour; HCP reaction to the family member; anticipated effects on the family member-HCP relationship; HCP support for being questioned about hand hygiene/medication; affective rating responses. RESULTS HCPs supported family member's intervening (88%) but only 41% agreed this would have positive effects on the family member/HCP relationship. Across vignettes and error scenarios the strongest predictors of attitudes were how the HCP (in the scenario) responded to the family member and whether an error actually occurred. Doctors (vs nurses) provided systematically more positive affective ratings to the vignettes. CONCLUSIONS Important predictors of HCPs' attitudes towards family members' involvement in patient safety have been highlighted. In particular, a discouraging response from HCP's decreased support for family members being involved and had strong perceived negative effects on the family member/HCP relationship.