from the Article: "Operating rooms (ORs) more and more evolve into high-tech environments with increasing pressure on finances, logistics, and a not be neglected impact on patient safety. Safe and cost-effective implementation of technological equipment in ORs is notoriously difficult to manage, specifically as generic implementation activities omit as hospitals have implemented local policies for implementations of technological equipment. )e purpose of this study is to identify success factors for effective implementations of new technologies and technological equipment in ORs, based on a systematic literature review. We accessed ten databases and reviewed included articles. )e search resulted in 1592 titles for review, and finally 37 articles were included in this review. We distinguish influencing factors and resulting factors based on the outcomes of this research. Six main categories of influencing factors on successful implementations of medical equipment in ORs were identified: “processes and activities,” “staff,” “communication,” “project management,” “technology,” and “training.” We identified a seventh category “performance” referring to resulting factors during implementations. We argue that aligning the identified influencing factors during implementation impacts the success, adaptation, and safe use of new technological equipment in the OR and thus the outcome of an implementation. The identified categories in literature are considered to be a baseline, to identify factors as elements of a generic holistic implementation model or protocol for new technological equipment in ORs."
MULTIFILE
ABSTRACT Introduction Junior doctors are responsible for a substantial number of prescribing errors, and final-year medical students lack sufficient prescribing knowledge and skills just before they graduate. Various national and international projects have been initiated to reform the teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) during undergraduate medical training. However, there is as yet no list of commonly prescribed and available medicines that European doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. Such a list could form the basis for a European Prescribing Exam and would harmonise European CP&T education. Therefore, the aim of this study is to reach consensus on a list of widely prescribed medicines, available in most European countries, that European junior doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision: the European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education. Methods and analysis This modified Delphi study will recruit European CP&T teachers (expert group). Two Delphi rounds will be carried out to enable a list to be drawn up of medicines that are available in ≥80% of European countries, which are considered standard prescribing practice, and which junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without supervision. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center (no. 2020.335) and by the Ethical Review Board of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (approved project no. NVMO‐ERB 2020.4.8). The European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education will be presented at national and international conferences and will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. It will also be used to develop and implement the European Prescribing Exam.
MULTIFILE
Objective: There are widespread shortages of personal protective equipment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprocessing filtering facepiece particle (FFP)-type respirators may provide an alternative solution in keeping healthcare professionals safe. Design: Prospective, bench-to-bedside. Setting: A primary care-based study using FFP-2 respirators without exhalation valve (3M Aura 1862+ (20 samples), Maco Pharma ZZM002 (14 samples)), FFP-2 respirators with valve (3M Aura 9322+ (six samples) and San Huei 2920V (16 samples)) and valved FFP type 3 respirators (Safe Worker 1016 (10 samples)). Interventions: All masks were reprocessed using a medical autoclave (17 min at 121°C with 34 min total cycle time) and subsequently tested up to three times whether these respirators retained their integrity (seal check and pressure drop) and ability to filter small particles (0.3–5.0 µm) in the laboratory using a particle penetration test. Results: We tested 33 respirators and 66 samples for filter capacity. All FFP-2 respirators retained their shape, whereas half of the decontaminated FFP-3 respirators showed deformities and failed the seal check. The filtering capacity of the 3M Aura 1862 was best retained after one, two and three decontamination cycles (0.3 µm: 99.3%±0.3% (new) vs 97.0±1.3, 94.2±1.3% or 94.4±1.6; p<0.001). Of the other FFP-2 respirators, the San Huei 2920 V had 95.5%±0.7% at baseline vs 92.3%±1.7% vs 90.0±0.7 after one-time and two-time decontaminations, respectively (p<0.001). The tested FFP-3 respirator (Safe Worker 1016) had a filter capacity of 96.5%±0.7% at baseline and 60.3%±5.7% after one-time decontamination (p<0.001). Breathing and pressure resistance tests indicated no relevant pressure changes between respirators that were used once, twice or thrice. Conclusion: This small single-centre study shows that selected FFP-2 respirators may be reprocessed for use in primary care, as the tested masks retain their shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort after decontamination using a medical autoclave.
MULTIFILE
