Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Appetite ; 161: 105111, 2021 06 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33482300

RESUMO

About 31% of post-harvest food available for human consumption is lost or wasted annually in the United States. Roughly one third (43 billion lbs.) of food loss occurs in grocery and other retail food stores. Supermarkets engage in food waste reduction, rescue, and recycling strategies, but little is known about frontline workers' and department managers' perspectives on food discards and strategies to limit waste. We aimed to increase understanding of factors influencing grocery retail employees' food waste decision-making at the store level, and of the perspectives of those frontline supermarket workers and managers responsible for food waste prevention and mitigation. We conducted 20 qualitative semi-structured interviews and used thematic analysis to explore how grocery workers and managers view food waste decision drivers, and how these impact the feasibility and effectiveness of waste reduction and food rescue and recycling in their stores. Workers and managers report personalized discard decision-making and confusion between quality and safety indicators. Interviewees described in-store policies, resources and trainings as lacking or inconsistently applied, leading to variability in food waste prevention, rescue, and recycling. Overall, interview participants considered waste reduction strategies that rescue profitable goods more feasible than other food rescue and recycling efforts like donation and composting. Workers' and managers' perceptions of in-store food waste drivers and views on extant food waste prevention and mitigation efforts point to areas for future research and intervention.


Assuntos
Alimentos , Eliminação de Resíduos , Comércio , Abastecimento de Alimentos , Humanos , Supermercados , Estados Unidos
2.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; 23(3): 385-388, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30141716

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Early antibiotic administration has been associated with a significant decrease in infection following open fractures. However, antibiotics are most effective at a time when many patients are still being transported for care. There is limited evidence that antibiotics may be safely administered for open fractures when being transported by life-flight personnel. No such data exists for ground ambulance transport of patients with open fractures. The purpose of the study was to assess the safety and feasibility of prophylactic antibiotic delivery in the prehospital setting. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study between January 1, 2014 and May 31, 2015 of all trauma patients transferred to a level 1 trauma center by a single affiliated ground ambulance transport service. If open fracture was suspected, the patient was indicated for antibiotic prophylaxis with 2 g IV Cefazolin. Exclusion criteria included penicillin allergy, higher priority patient care tasks, and remaining transport time insufficient for administration of antibiotics. The administration of antibiotics was recorded. Patient demographics, associated injuries, priority level (1 = life threatening injury, 2 = potentially life threatening injury, 3 = non-life threatening injury), and timing of transport and antibiotic administration were recorded as well. RESULTS: EMTs identified 70 patients during the study period with suspected open fractures. Eight reported penicillin allergy and were not eligible for prophylaxis. The patient's clinical status and transport time allowed for administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for 32 patients (51.6%). Total prehospital time was the only variable assessed that had a significant impact on administration of prehospital antibiotics (<30 minutes = 29% vs. >30 minutes = 66%; p < 0.001). There were no allergic reactions among patients and no needle sticks or other injuries to EMT personnel related to antibiotic administration. CONCLUSIONS: EMT personnel were able to administer prehospital antibiotic prophylaxis for a substantial portion of the identified patients without any complications for patients or providers. Given the limited training provided to EMTs prior to implementation of the antibiotic prophylaxis protocol, it is likely that further development of this initial training will lead to even higher rates of prehospital antibiotic administration for open fractures.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Antibioticoprofilaxia , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Fraturas Expostas/microbiologia , Controle de Infecções , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Segurança do Paciente , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA