The public's attitude towards doctors' use of Twitter and perceived professionalism: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Medical professionals use social media to interact with other healthcare professionals, discuss medical issues and promote healthcare information. These platforms have tremendous power to promote healthcare messages but also have potential to damage the profession if used inappropriately. It is currently unknown how others perceive medical doctors' Twitter activity and, therefore, we conducted an online survey exploring these views. METHODS: We used a Google Forms questionnaire consisting of 21 questions, which we distributed on Twitter, exploring doctors', patients', the public's and other healthcare professionals' views of doctors' Twitter activities. We investigated factors that were associated with mistrust by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and twenty-six respondents completed the survey. By univariate analysis, a higher proportion of non-doctors reported witnessing unprofessional behaviour and potential breaches of patient confidentiality compared with doctors (p<0.01). In addition, a significantly higher proportion of non-doctors felt that doctors' Twitter accounts should be monitored by both their employer and regulator when compared with doctors. By multivariate analysis, the main predictor of mistrust in the profession were those that had previously witnessed unprofessional behaviour (odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 2.08-3.33; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: There are discrepancies in how doctors and non-doctors view Twitter activity and significant mistrust in the profession was brought about by doctors' Twitter activity. To help limit this, adherence to current guidelines set out by the General Medical Council and British Medical Association is vital and doctors should be cautious about how their Twitter activity is professionally perceived by others before posting.

Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Older Patients: A Review of Current Practice and Challenges Faced.

Nasogastric tube feeding is an essential way of delivering enteral nutrition when the oral route is insufficient or unsafe. Malnutrition is recognised as a reversible factor for sarcopenia and frailty. It is therefore crucial that malnutrition is treated in older inpatients who have dysphagia and require enteral nutrition. Despite five National Patient Safety Alerts since 2005, "Never Events" related to nasogastric feeding persist. In addition to placement errors, current practice often leads to delays in feeding, which subsequently result in worse patient outcomes. It is crucial that tube placement is confirmed accurately and in a timely way. Medical advancements in this area have been slow to find a solution which meets this need. In this paper, we provide an updated review on the current use of feeding nasogastric tubes in the older population, the issues associated with confirming correct placement, and innovative solutions for improving safety and outcomes in older patients.

An Unusual Cause of Gastrointestinal Perforation in an Adolescent Patient With Beta-Thalassemia on Deferasirox and SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Chelation therapy is recognized as a safe and effective treatment option in patients with beta-thalassemia with iron overload. We report an 18-year-old male with acute abdomen and gastrointestinal bleeding with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection secondary to gastric perforation due to chelation therapy. This patient had a prolonged intensive care stay with complications of SARS-CoV-2 and a small bowel obstruction post-surgery that resolved after conservative management. Given the acute presentation, chelation therapy use and concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinicians should keep an open mind on the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen in patients with beta-thalassemia.

Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 Infection Outside Intensive Care.

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected all aspects of inpatient hospital medicine with patients admitted from level 1 (general medical wards) to level 3 (intensive care). Often, there are subtle physiological differences in these cohorts of patients. In particular, in intensive care, patients tend to be younger and have increased disease severity. Data, to date, has combined outcomes from medical and intensive care cohorts, or looked exclusively at intensive care. We looked solely at the level 1 (medical) cohort to identify their clinical characteristics and predictors of outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult patients admitted to a central London teaching hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from 23rd March to 7th April 2020 identified from the hospital electronic database. Any patients who required level 2 or 3 care were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients were included for analysis. Increased age and frailty scores were associated with increased 30-day mortality. Reduced renal function and elevated troponin blood levels are also associated with poor outcome. Baseline observations showed that increased oxygen requirement was predictive for mortality. A trend of increased mortality with lower diastolic blood pressure was noted. Lymphopenia was not shown to be related to mortality. CONCLUSION: Urea and creatinine are the best predictors of mortality in the level 1 cohort. Unlike previous intensive care data, lymphopenia is not predictive of mortality. We suggest that these factors be considered when prognosticating and for resource allocation for the treatment and escalation of care for patients with COVID-19 infection.