Identification of key potential infection processes and risk factors in the computed tomography examination process by FMEA method under COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To identify the key infection processes and risk factors in Computed Tomography (CT) examination process within the standard prevention and control measures for the COVID-19 epidemic, aiming to mitigate cross-infection occurrences in the hospital. METHOD: The case hospital has assembled a team of 30 experts specialized in CT examination. Based on the CT examination process, the potential failure modes were assessed from the perspective of severity (S), occurrence probability (O), and detectability (D); they were then combined with corresponding risk prevention measures. Finally, key infection processes and risk factors were identified according to the risk priority number (RPN) and expert analysis. RESULTS: Through the application of RPN and further analysis, four key potential infection processes were identified, including "CT request form (A1)," "during the scan of CT patient (B2)," "CT room and objects disposal (C2)," and "medical waste (garbage) disposal (C3)". In addition, eight key risk factors were also identified, including "cleaning personnel does not wear masks normatively (C32)," "nurse does not select the vein well, resulting in extravasation of the peripheral vein for enhanced CT (B25)," "patient cannot find the CT room (A13)," "patient has obtained a CT request form but does not know the procedure (A12)," "patient is too unwell to continue with the CT scan (B24)," "auxiliary staff (or technician) does not have a good grasp of the sterilization and disinfection standards (C21)," "auxiliary staff (or technician) does not sterilize the CT machine thoroughly (C22)," and "cleaning personnel lacks of knowledge of COVID-19 prevention and control (C33)". CONCLUSION: Hospitals can publicize the precautions regarding CT examination through various channels, reducing the incidence of CT examination failure. Hospitals' cleaning services are usually outsourced, and the educational background of the staff employed in these services is generally not high. Therefore, during training and communication, it is more necessary to provide a series of scope and training programs that are aligned with their understanding level. The model developed in this study effectively identifies the key infection prevention process and critical risk factors, enhancing the safety of medical staff and patients. This has significant research implications for the potential epidemic of major infectious diseases.

Efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Oral H1 antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more effective in improving symptoms of patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis by performing a network meta-analysis. METHODS: The search was executed in PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0, and the outcome measures of the analysis were symptom score reductions of patients. Relative risks with 95% Confidence Intervals were used in the network meta-analysis to compare the clinical effect of treatments involved, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRAs) were also calculated to rank the treatments' efficacy. RESULTS: 18 eligible randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 9419 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. All the antihistamine treatments outperformed placebo in total symptom score reduction and each individual symptom score reduction. According to the results of SUCRA, rupatadine 20 mg and rupatadine 10 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of total symptom score (SUCRA: 99.7%, 76.3%), nasal congestion score (SUCRA: 96.4%, 76.4%), rhinorrhea score (SUCRA: 96.6%, 74.6%) and ocular symptom score (SUCRA: 97.2%, 88.8%); rupatadine 20 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of nasal itching score (SUCRA: 84.8%, 83.4%) and sneezing score (SUCRA: 87.3%, 95.4%); loratadine 10 mg was ranked the lowest in each symptom score reduction besides placebo. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that rupatadine is the most effective in alleviating symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis among different oral H1 antihistamine treatments involved, and rupatadine 20 mg performs better than rupatadine 10 mg. While loratadine 10 mg has inferior efficacy for patients to the other antihistamine treatments.

Efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Introduction Oral H1 antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more effective in improving symptoms of patients. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis by performing a network meta-analysis. Methods The search was executed in PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0, and the outcome measures of the analysis were symptom score reductions of patients. Relative risks with 95% Confidence Intervals were used in the network meta-analysis to compare the clinical effect of treatments involved, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRAs) were also calculated to rank the treatments' efficacy. Results 18 eligible randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 9419 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. All the antihistamine treatments outperformed placebo in total symptom score reduction and each individual symptom score reduction. According to the results of SUCRA, rupatadine 20 mg and rupatadine 10 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of total symptom score (SUCRA: 99.7%, 76.3%), nasal congestion score (SUCRA: 96.4%, 76.4%), rhinorrhea score (SUCRA: 96.6%, 74.6%) and ocular symptom score (SUCRA: 97.2%, 88.8%); rupatadine 20 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of nasal itching score (SUCRA: 84.8%, 83.4%) and sneezing score (SUCRA: 87.3%, 95.4%); loratadine 10 mg was ranked the lowest in each symptom score reduction besides placebo. Conclusion This study suggests that rupatadine is the most effective in alleviating symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis among different oral H1 antihistamine treatments involved, and rupatadine 20 mg performs better than rupatadine 10 mg. While loratadine 10 mg has inferior efficacy for patients to the other antihistamine treatments.