Population-based cross -sectional survey on intestinal helminth infections with a focus on taeniasis among residents of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

Few studies have been conducted on the epidemiology of enteric infectious diseases of public health importance in communities along the United States-Mexico border, and these studies typically focus on bacterial and viral diseases. The epidemiology of intestinal helminth infections along the border has not recently been explored, and there are no published reports for El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, both of which are high traffic urban areas along the Texas-Mexico border. The purpose of this research project was to conduct a cross-sectional epidemiologic survey for enteric helminths of medical importance along the Texas-Mexico border region of El Paso and Ciudad Juarez and to evaluate risk factors for exposure to these parasites. In addition, an emphasis was placed on the zoonotic tapeworm, Taenia solium. This tapeworm is especially important in this region because of the increasing incidence of neurocysticercosis, a severe disease spread by carriers of intestinal T. solium. Fecal samples were collected from individuals of all ages in a population-based cross-sectional household survey and evaluated for the presence of helminth parasites using fecal flotations. In addition, a Taenia coproantigen enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed on each stool sample to identify tapeworm carriers. A standardized questionnaire was administered to identify risk factors and routes of exposure for enteric helminth infections with additional questions to assess risk factors specific for taeniasis. The actual prevalence of taeniasis along the Texas-Mexico border was unknown, and this is the first population-based study performed in this region. Flotations were performed on 395 samples and four (1%) were positive for helminths including Ascaris, hookworms and Taenia species. Immunodiagnostic testing demonstrated a prevalence of 2.9% (11/378) for taeniasis. Based on the case definition, a 3% (12/395) prevalence of taeniasis was detected in this area. In addition, statistical analyses indicate that residents of El Paso are 8.5 times more likely to be a tapeworm carrier compared to residents of Juarez (PR=8.5, 95% CI=2.35, 30.81). This finding has important implications in terms of planning effective health education campaigns to decrease the prevalence of enteric helminths in populations along the Texas-Mexico border. ^

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.