Acne vulgaris is considered one of the most common medical skin conditions globally, affecting approximately 85% of individuals worldwide. While acne is most prevalent among adolescents between 15 to 24 years old, it is not uncommon in adults either. Acne addresses a number of different challenges, causing a multidimensional disease burden. These challenges include clinical sequelae, such as post inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and the chance of developing lifelong disfiguring scars, psychological aspects such as deficits in health related quality of life, chronicity of acne, economic factors, and treatment-related issues, such as antimicrobial resistance. The multidimensionality of the disease burden stipulates the importance of an effective and timely treatment in a well organised care system. Within the Netherlands, acne care provision is managed by several types of professional care givers, each approaching acne care from different angles: (I) general practitioners (GPs) who serve as ‘gatekeepers’ of healthcare within primary care; (II) dermatologists providing specialist medical care within secondary care; (III) dermal therapists, a non-physician medical professional with a bachelor’s degree, exclusively operating within the Australian and Dutch primary and secondary health care; and (IV) beauticians, mainly working within the cosmetology or wellness domain. However, despite the large variety in acne care services, many patients experience a delay between the onset of acne and receiving an effective treatment, or a prolonged use of care, which raises the question whether acne related care resources are being used in the most effective and (cost)efficient way. It is therefore necessary to gain insights into the organization and quality of Dutch acne health care beyond conventional guidelines and protocols. Exploring areas of care that may need improvement allow Dutch acne healthcare services to develop and improve the quality of acne care services in harmony with patient needs.
BACKGROUND Seclusion is an intervention widely used in Dutch mental health care. The intervention can be effective in acute situations to avert (further) aggression or self-harm. However, seclusion is also a controversial intervention that may not have any positive effect with regard to symptom improvement. In general patients report negative effects after being secluded e.g. anxiety and having had a traumatic experience.The main reason for seclusion is not manageable aggressive behaviour of a patient. Earlier studies reported several risk factors that may contribute to seclusion, regarding patients’ characteristics, but also with regard to staff characteristics, working protocols and unit characteristics. Because of unequivocally results there is the need for a longitudinal prospective study to examine staff- and unit determinants in association with seclusion.AIMS The objective of this study is to determine which nursing staff and unit characteristics are associated with seclusion following aggression in hospitalized adult psychiatric patients. We hope to create a predictive model to estimate the risk of seclusion on an acute psychiatric ward.METHODS We will conduct a prospective observational study on a closed psychiatric ward of an academic hospital. Patients are aged 18 – 65 years and are admitted when their psychiatric condition leads to an immediate threat to the patient themselves or their surroundings.All nurses on the ward are all qualified nurses and registered in the Dutch registration of healthcare professionals. They are trained every six months in techniques of verbal de-escalation and safe physical restraint. For both nurses and the patients baseline characteristics are monitored. Every shift (day, evening, night) data are gathered on the patients, nurses and unit. Data are retrieved from the electronic patient chart, including information of the Brøset Violence Checklist. Furthermore, the exchange of information among nurses is measured using the Grid instrument. Data will be analysed using multilevel regression analysis. Data will be collected for a period of 2 years, which started January 2013.RESULTS The primary endpoint in our study is the incidence of seclusion. As a secondary endpoint, the duration of the seclusion is measured. These endpoints are measured using the Argus registration system and will be linked to predictors of seclusion, with special focus on the nursing staff- and unit determinants.
LINK
Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non-invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning.
