ABSTRACT
Introduction: Negligence of proper time and poor performance of resuscitation team can lead to more mortality and negative consequences of cardiac arrest, as well as less survival. This study was conducted with objective of determining the arrival time of physician and resuscitation team to survive the victims of cardiopulmonary arrest. Materials and methods: In this prospective and descriptive-analytic study, the resuscitation performance and the arrival time of resuscitation team in 143 inpatients who had been diagnosed with witnessed cardiopulmonary arrest were examined using a researcher-made checklist. Data analysis was performed using parametric and non-parametric statistical tests and SPSS. Results: Initial survival rate was 26.6%. In general, the mean time of physician's presence after the code announcement in minutes and seconds was 02:31 ± 01:22. It was also 02:24 ± 01:15 in successful cases and 02:34 ± 01:25 in unsuccessful cases. Independent t-test did not show a significant difference between the physician's presence time and the rate of initial successful resuscitation (p = 0.504). The time of first shock after observing ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (in minutes and seconds) was 01:30 ± 00:47. According to independent t-test, the aforementioned time was less than the mean time (02:31 ± 01:22) of physician's presence (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study, the initial survival rate in comparison to other regions in the country was almost more favorable and it was similar to global norms. In this study, the starting time of resuscitation was within the acceptable range. There was no relationship between the presence of physician and the initial survival rate of patients, as well as the use of defibrillator (by physician compared to other team members) and intubation with the initial survival rate. This could indicate the adequate performance of resuscitation team in the absence of physician on the condition of having sufficient knowledge and skill.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Surgeons are one of the groups, most highly exposed to the risk of needle stick injuries at work. The present study aims to determine the prevalence and reporting of needle stick injuries during the first 6 months of 2012, in faculty surgeons affiliated to the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. METHODS: In a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical survey, 29 surgeons were studied based on the census method. A reliable and valid questionnaire was used as a research instrument to collect the data. Data was analyzed using SPSS v.16 and based on descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Among 29 recruited surgeons, 5 (17.2%) had needle stick injuries during the 6 months, only one of whom had followed the established guidelines about reporting and following treatment. The most common instrument causing injury was the suture needle (60%). Significant differences were found in both groups of the injured and non-injured in term of gender (X(2)=5.612, P= 0.003), and number of patients (Z= 2.40, P=0.016) and daily working hours (Z=2.85, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In relation to the relatively high prevalence of needle stick injuries among the surgeons and their lack of reporting, it is suggested that the Safety Guidelines in the operating room are carefully observed. Moreover, safer and lower risk surgical Instruments should be used.