Microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed parsley (Petroselinum crispum) sold in food markets, southeastern Brazil.

AIMS: This study evaluated the microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed parsley sold in southeastern Brazilian food markets. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred samples were submitted to the enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae by plating on MacConkey agar. Colonies of Enterobacteriaceae were randomly selected and identified by MALDI-TOF MS. Samples were also tested for Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella sp. The mean count of Enterobacteriaceae was 6·0 ± 1·0 log CFU per gram, while 18 genera (including 30 species) of bacteria belonging to this family were identified. Salmonella and L. monocytogenes were not detected, while L. innocua was found in two samples and L. fleischmannii was found in one sample. Moreover generic Escherichia coli was found in three samples, all from different brands of minimally processed parsley. CONCLUSIONS: Even though microbial pathogens were not isolated, a variety of indicator micro-organisms were identified, including vegetable spoilers and species capable of causing human opportunistic infections. These results suggest hygienic failures and/or lack of temperature control during processing and storage of these ready-to-eat products. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF STUDY: This study highlights the need for control measures during the production chain of minimally processed parsley in order to reduce microbial contamination and the risks of foodborne diseases.

The problem of poor retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills may lie with the instructor, not the learner or the curriculum.

Many studies (several even before American Heart Association recommended in 1973 that lay public be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR] have documented that retention of CPR skills is poor, unaffected by modifications in curriculum or whether the students are lay or professional. We chose to investigate what actually occurs during a CPR course, and gained the following insights: despite clearly defined curricula, we found that instructors did not teach in a standardized way. Practice time was limited and errors in performance were not corrected. Instructors consistently rated the students' overall performance as acceptable; at the same time, using the same checklist, we consistently rated performance as unacceptable. The checklist is an inaccurate tool for evaluating CPR performance. Despite the poor performance that we documented, students and instructors were satisfied with the courses and believed that the level of performance was high. As a result of these studies, we discovered that the problem of poor retention of CPR skills may lie not with the learner or the curriculum, but with the instructor. But, since lives are being saved with bystander CPR, does this documented poor retention matter? Perhaps the solution is not only to improve instructor training to make certain that students receive adequate practice time and accurate skill evaluation, but also to modify the criteria for correct performance when testing for retention. These criteria should be based on the minimum CPR skills that are required to sustain life for the critical 4-8 min before defibrillation and other advanced cardiac life support are delivered.

Can better basic and advanced cardiac life support improve outcome from cardiac arrest?

The effect of basic and advanced cardiac life support (BLS and ACLS) on long-term survival is dependent upon both the response time and the quality of intervention. Retention research using the results of classroom testing as indirect indicators has shown that performance of BLS and ACLS skills is poor. This suggests that BLS and ACLS courses do not teach the knowledge and skills well, the information is too difficult to retain, testing procedures are faulty, and/or the performance standards are unrealistic. To maximize the likelihood of successful resuscitation from cardiac arrest, we propose the following: (a) simplify the BLS procedures; (b) simplify the BLS and ACLS curricula; (c) simplify teaching strategies; (d) simplify testing based on what steps are required to sustain life; (e) define objective criteria for knowledge acquisition and skill performance; (f) base refresher training on diagnosed deficiencies and evaluate innovative ways to improve retention; (g) develop a resuscitation record to provide accurate documentation of patient status, dysrhythmias, therapy, and responses to therapy; (h) develop a process evaluation tool to evaluate individual and group performances during actual resuscitation; and (i) form an international consortium of BLS and ACLS investigators.