[The nurses' strike in the United Kingdom: the reasons, the debate and the implications]. / Lo sciopero degli infermieri nel Regno Unito: le ragioni, il dibattito e le implicazioni.

. The nurses' strike in the United Kingdom: an overview of the reasons, debate and implications. INTRODUCTION: In the UK, where the National Health Service (NHS) was founded, one of the most important and long-lasting strikes in nursing is taking place. AIM: To understand the historical, professional, political/social reasons for the UK nurse's strike. METHOD: Historical, scientific literature and data from key informant interviews have been analysed. Data has been summarized narratively. RESULTS: On 15th December 2022, more than 100,000 NHS nurses went on strike in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales asking for an increased salary; on the 6th and 7th of February and 1st of March the protest has continued. By improving pay, nurses believe the attractiveness of the profession can increase and counteract the loss of nurses who are leaving the public for the private sector, and the lack of attractiveness of the profession towards young people. The strike is organized by the Royal College of Nursing in a structured form which gives nurses precise information on how it should be explained to patients: according to a survey, 79% of the population supports the nurses' strike. However, not all agree with this strike action. DISCUSSION: The media, social media and professional debate is passionate with some polarization between who is in favor and who is against. Nurses strike not only for better wages but also to increase patient safety. What we see in the UK today is the result of years of austerity, lack of investment and health priorities: a similar situation experienced in several countries as well.

Monoclonal antibody-induced papulopustular rash: Clinical course, communication to health-care professionals and reactive measures as reported by patients.

PURPOSE: The primary end-point was to describe the clinical course of monoclonal antibody-induced papulopustular rash (mAB-induced PPR), when patients alert health-care providers and the subsequent reactive measures employed. Exploring the predictors affecting PPR grading was the secondary end-point. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study involving six Italian oncology outpatient departments was conducted. Thirty-nine patients with cancer undergoing cetuximab or panitumumab treatment were included. Information was collected through medical records and face-to-face interviews. mAB-induced PPR was scored by patients' self-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Eventsv4.02 and was defined as severe when the grade ≥3. RESULTS: Thirty-five (89.7%) patients developed a rash, which was severe in nine cases. The rash usually appeared within the first week after starting the drug (22, 62.8%), peaked in severity during the first month (26, 74.3%) and resolved 4-8 weeks after the end of mABs therapy (15, 45.7%). At the time of the interviews, the rash was not still resolved in almost half (n = 16) of the patients. Twenty-six (74.3%) patients reported sequelae and the mostly common were erythema (21, 81%) and dry skin (14, 54%). Only half of the patients informed health-care professionals as soon as the rash appeared. All the patients treated the rash topically and mAB therapy was modified in 16 (45.7%) cases (reduction, n = 10; discontinuation, n = 9; withdrawal, n = 2). No association between male gender, age, fair skin, current smokers during therapy and PPR grading escalation was found. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of the rash was pathognomonic. Patients should be further encouraged to communicate the onset of a rash to health-care professionals as soon as it appears to avoid grading escalation and sequelae. The adoption of CTCAE as a patient-reported outcome may become an instrument to help health-care providers in tailoring treatment measures.