Validation and use of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool questionnaire: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Patient safety incidents can impact not only patients and families but also healthcare providers, who may experience negative emotions and symptoms, such as anxiety, guilt, stress, and loss of confidence. To identify and support these "second victims," a screening tool called the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST) has been developed. This scoping review aims to map our current knowledge of the SVEST in terms of its scope of use, validation and limitations. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: In accordance with the framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews, we conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Embase and PsycINFO databases from database inception up till 1 March 2023. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were reviewed. The SVEST has been cross-culturally adapted from English into other languages. The SVEST has been successfully used in different contexts and with various healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, midwives and pharmacists. The tool has been used to assess the impact of second victim experiences and the effectiveness of support interventions in addressing the phenomenon. Validity assessment of translated versions of SVEST in the reviewed studies revealed good content validity in most cases, although some studies did not report clear values for scale-level Content Validity Index. On the whole, SVEST is generally a reliable and valid tool, although further refinements and modifications may improve its validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the significance of SVEST as a crucial resource for healthcare providers and organisations that prioritise well-being and safety in health care. It also underscores the importance of recognising the needs of second victims and offering them appropriate interventions to manage the aftermath of adverse events.

Public sentiment on the global outbreak of monkeypox: an unsupervised machine learning analysis of 352,182 twitter posts.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to study the public's sentiments on the current monkeypox outbreaks via an unsupervised machine learning analysis of social media posts. STUDY DESIGN: This was an exploratory analysis of tweets sentiments. METHODS: We extracted original tweets containing the terms 'monkeypox', 'monkey pox' or 'monkey_pox' and posted them in the English language from 6 May 2022 (first case detected in the United Kingdom) to 23 July 2022 (when World Health Organization declared Monkeypox to be a global health emergency). Retweets and duplicate tweets were excluded from study. Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) Named Entity Recognition. This was followed by topic modelling (specifically BERTopic) and manual thematic analysis by the study team, with independent reviews of the topic labels and themes. RESULTS: Based on topic modelling and thematic analysis of a total of 352,182 Twitter posts, we derived five topics clustered into three major themes related to the public discourse on the ongoing outbreaks. These include concerns of safety, stigmatisation of minority communities, and a general lack of faith in public institutions. The public sentiments underscore growing (and existing) partisanship, personal health worries in relation to the evolving situation, as well as concerns of the media's portrayal of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer and minority communities, which might further stigmatise these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Monkeypox is an emerging infectious disease of public concern. Our study has highlighted important societal issues, including misinformation, political mistrust and anti-gay stigma that should be sensitively considered when designing public health policies to contain the ongoing outbreaks.

Interocular optical biometry differences as predictors of postoperative cataract surgery refractive outcomes: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have reported the impact of preoperative interocular discrepancy in optical biometry (axial length, corneal power, white-to-white, central corneal thickness) on postoperative refractive outcomes. This study aims to investigate any predictive value of preoperative optical biometry differences between eyes on postoperative refractive outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who have undergone optical biometry measurement before unilateral phacoemulsification in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Sabah, Malaysia from 2018 to 2020. Biometry data of interest includes axial length (AL), keratometry(K), white-to-white (WTW) and central corneal thickness (CCT). The postoperative outcomes of interest were the patient's preoperative refractive target, postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative refractive outcomes, and optical biometry prediction error. RESULTS: The interocular biometry discrepancies which were associated with higher odds of prediction error >0.5D from the refractive target were Interocular Corneal Power Difference (IKD)-average≥0.8 D (Odds Ratio, OR=1.97; 95% Confidence Intervals, 95%CI: 1.06, 3.67) and Interocular WTW Difference ≥1.5 mm (OR=2.77; 95%CI: 1.11, 6.92). In cases with prediction error >1.0D, the measurements were Interocular AL Difference ≥0.4 mm (OR=2.99; 95%CI: 1.11, 8.06), IKD flat≥0.4D (OR=2.76; 95%CI: 1.31, 5.82) and Interocular CCT Difference ≥15µm (OR=3.53; 95%CI: 1.29, 9.64). CONCLUSION: Interocular axial length difference ≥0.4mm and interocular central corneal thickness difference ≥15µm are associated with refractive error >1.0D from the pre-operative target. Interocular average corneal power difference ≥0.8D and interocular white-to-white difference ≥1.5mm have higher odds of refractive drift >0.5D from the refractive aim. The above cutoff values help clinicians to identify which patients have a higher risk of refractive shift post-cataract surgery and counsel the patient before cataract operation.

Impact of COVID-19 on environmental services workers in healthcare settings: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, demand for deep cleaning and environmental services workers grew exponentially. Although there is extant literature examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, less emphasis has been placed on environmental services workers, who play an equally important front-line role. AIM: To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on environmental services workers employed in healthcare settings. METHODS: Scoping review methodology. A search strategy was developed, in consultation with a medical information specialist, employing various combinations of the keywords [(environmental services worker OR health attendant OR housekeeping) AND (COVID OR coronavirus OR pandemic OR epidemic)]. Four bibliographical databases were searched from inception to 5th July 2022: OVID Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Database. RESULTS: In total, 24 studies were included in this review. The studies were generally cross-sectional in design. Seroprevalence studies highlighted significantly higher rates of COVID-19 among environmental services workers (housekeeping, cleaning and janitorial staff) compared with other clinical and non-clinical staff in the same institutions. In addition, based on qualitative interviews, environmental services workers experienced greater psychological stress working during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Environmental services workers were particularly vulnerable to increased work stress and COVID-19 during the pandemic. Health systems need to do more to support these workers. Further research could investigate specific policy and procedural changes to benefit this under-recognized group in the greater healthcare workforce.