Level of Awareness of Certified Non-critical Care Physicians in Diagnosing, Managing, and Disposing Anaphylactic Cases.

Background: Anaphylaxis is known as an acute, severe hypersensitivity reaction that rapidly initiates after exposure to a triggering agent. It is a life-threatening condition, and early recognition and swift intervention are crucial to saving patients' lives. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the ability of certified non-critical care physicians to recognize, manage, and dispose cases of anaphylaxis. Methods: A survey consisting of 19 questions was developed by expert emergency consultants to evaluate physicians' knowledge regarding the recognition, management, and disposition of anaphylactic episodes. Responses were collected through in-person surveys conducted with physicians from various specialties and varying clinical experience levels at a tertiary care center in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Results: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 173 physicians completed the survey, with 81.5% being consultants and 18.5% specialists. Only 5.2% correctly identified all three proposed anaphylaxis clinical scenarios, 16.8% identified two scenarios correctly, and 51.4% identified only one scenario. While 42.8% recognized the first-line management of anaphylaxis, only 24.3% and 24.9% knew the correct epinephrine dose and route, respectively. Regarding the disposition of patients experiencing an anaphylactic episode, 61.9% of responders opted to dispose the case to the emergency department. Conclusion: Our study reveals a knowledge gap among non-critical care physicians practicing in a tertiary care center concerning the identification and management of anaphylaxis. Raising awareness of this life-threatening condition is imperative to address this serious issue.

Breaking Bad News of a Cancer Diagnosis: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patients' Perspectives.

Purpose: A cancer diagnosis is an overwhelming process for both patients and doctors. Many studies have addressed doctors' opinions and knowledge regarding breaking bad news (BBN). However, scarce knowledge exists regarding patients' perspectives for communicating bad news. Therefore, the current study aims to assess cancer patient preferences and satisfaction about BBN. Patients and Methods: This is a mixed methods study consisting of two phases; an in-depth interview and cross-sectional quantitative analysis. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data to explore patients' satisfaction and preferences about BBN. For quantitative analyses, the overall satisfaction was calculated as satisfaction percent. Bivariate analyses were performed, and statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Quality function deployment was used to effectively define patient requirements of highest priority. Results: Thematic analysis revealed two main themes. Theme 1; patients' requirements for BBN and theme 2; patients' reaction at the time of diagnosis with their categories. For the quantitative part, a total of 222 patients responded to the survey, females made up 70% of the sample. Satisfaction score percent ranged from 25.5 to 100%, with a mean of 82.7±11.9%. The most preferred items were mainly concerned with the doctor being honest and encouraging, good listener and interacting giving simple smooth explanations without using medical terms, and empathetic (average score 4.8/5). Also, providing the diagnosis in a calm and private environment (4.7/5). Analysis also found that the requirements for improvement included providing a written summary after receiving the diagnosis and patient perception assessed by the doctor before telling the diagnosis. Conclusion: Communicating bad news effectively is crucial in the management of cancer patients. The process of BBN should be patient-centered, focusing on patients' needs. Thus, the current study has demonstrated the patients' preferences and the requirements, which should be incorporated into BBN protocols.

100 YEARS OF VITAMIN D: Dose-response for change in 25-hydroxyvitamin D after UV exposure: outcome of a systematic review.

A systematic review of publications addressing change in vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD)) after exposure to UV radiation identified 2001 independent peer-reviewed publications. Of these, 21 used artificial sources of UV radiation, met all inclusion criteria and were quality assured; 13 publications used solar radiation and met sufficient inclusion criteria to be retained as supporting evidence; 1 further included publication used both solar and artificial sources. The review consistently identified that low dose, sub-erythemal doses are more effective for vitamin D synthesis than doses close to a minimum erythema dose; increasing skin area exposed increases the amount of vitamin D synthesised although not necessarily in a linear manner; constant dosing leads to a dose-dependent plateau in 25OHD, and dose-response is greatest at the start of a dosing regime; there is a large interpersonal variation in response to UV exposure. Fourteen of the studies using artificial sources of radiation were used to determine a dose-response relationship for change in 25OHD on whole-body exposure to repeated sub-erythemal doses of UV radiation, taking the form Δ25OHD (nmol/L) = A ln(standard vitamin D dose) + B. This helps quantify our understanding of UV as a source of vitamin D and enables exposure regimes for safe synthesis of vitamin D to be assessed. Specific studies of people with pigmented skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 5 and 6) were rare, and this dose-response relationship is only applicable to white-skinned individuals as skin type is a determinant of response to UV radiation. Findings provide information for vitamin D guidance updates.