Background and Aim: The COVID-19 pandemic is capable of severely affecting the mental health of health care workers, who are at the forefront of this crisis; while the official staff of health organizations is facing the same danger. Therefore, monitoring awareness and other mental health issues to understand the mediating factors and awareness of appropriate interventions is a necessary priority. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the level of knowledge, attitude, and practice of medical and administrative staff in facing the COVID-19 virus. Methods & Materials: This cross-sectional descriptive study was performed on 160 medical and administrative staff of Jahrom hospitals in 2020. Demographic information questionnaire and researcher-made questionnaire of knowledge, attitude and practice of medical personnel about coronavirus (Covid 19) were used to collect information. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 21 and descriptive and inferential statistical tests. Results: 65% of subjects were women and the rest were men. In most of the answers given to each item in both groups, the medical and administrative staff’s answers were close to each other. In the case of the statement "I am more likely to get a corona", 54.4% of the medical staff chose the strongly agreed option, while this percentage is 16.5% for the administrative staff. This indicates that the medical staff is very afraid of getting COVID-19. According to the results, the mean knowledge scores of the medical staff (with an average of 94.35) were significantly higher than the administrative staff (with an average of 87.75) (t=5.96, p<0.001). But the performance of administrative staff (with an average of 93.14) is significantly higher than medical staff (with an average of 87.17) (t=-2.710, p=0.007). No significant difference was observed between the mean scores of the attitude scores of both groups (p=0.438). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the level of awareness in the face of corona virus in the administrative staff is significantly lower than the medical staff, but the administrative staff has a better performance in facing of the corona virus than the medical staff. It seems that educational measures are necessary to increase the awareness of these people.
ntroduction: COVID-19 is currently a global pandemic, and coagulation-related mortality has been widely reported in patients suffering from it. Objective: this article aimed to investigate the coagulation profile of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted using a retrospective research design. We recruited patients with COVID-19 admitted to a hospital from June 15th to July 7th, 2020. Upon patients’ entering a blood sample was drawn from each patient for assessing patient’s coagulation profile (PT, PTT, INR, Platelet count); and a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan was performed for each patient. The study patients were divided in to sever group (CO-RADS score 5) and non-sever group (CO-RADS score <5). Results: Thirty-six patients (20 males and 16 females) with a mean age of 54.7±17.5 years were studied. Of them, 11 cases (30.56%) had severe pulmonary involvement. Also, the coagulation profiles were longer in the severe group than non-sever group. As well, the means of platelet count that were 232.440 per microliter in the non-severe group and 289.180 per microliter in the severe and non-sever groups, respectively; but still not statistically significant (p>0.05). The Area under the ROC Curve (AUC) for PT and INR was 0.615 and 0.611, respectively. The AUC for platelet count was 0.680 (95% CI: 0.501 to 0.859) and had an acceptable discriminating power. Conclusions: In this study, we did not find any statistically significant relationship between the results of coagulation tests and the severity of pulmonary involvement according to HRCT scan findings in COVID-19 patients. But further analyses suggest that, except PTT, the other coagulation tests (PT, INR, and platelet count) may discriminate severe COVID-19 patients.
Introduction: The present study aimed to compare analgesic effects of IV lidocaine vs. IV morphine on the management and relief of acute pain caused by the extremity trauma. Materials and Methods: The present study was a triple-blind randomized clinical trial that was conducted in the emergency department of Peymanieh Hospital of Jahrom. Patients aged 16 to 65 with acute extremity traumas and the need for pain control were eligible for the study. Meaningly, one group received IV Lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) and another group received IV Morphine (0.1 mg/kg). Pain scores, side effects, and vital signs were evaluated in the admission, and 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the injection. Data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistical tests in SPSS software at a significant level of P< 0.05. Results: 60 patients with a mean age of 35.31 ± 11.10 years were included in the study. Correspondingly, demographic characteristics and pain scores were similar in both groups. Median pain was higher in the intravenous morphine group than the Lidocaine group at the 15th minute after the injection (P= 0.035), but it was higher in the Lidocaine group than the IV morphine group at the 60th minute after the injection (P= 0.045). There was no significant difference between research groups at other times. Furthermore, there was a significant difference between IV Lidocaine and morphine in terms of pulse rates during the drug injection (P= 0.012), but no significant difference was seen in terms of their side effects (P>0.05). Conclusion: Based on the research results, IV Lidocaine could be considered as an appropriate alternative for the emergency pain management in the emergency department.
Introduction: Aortic dissection is an uncommon disorder with a high mortality rate, especially if misdiagnosis and mistreatment are not considered. Case Presentation: We present a 67-year old female with slurred speech and left sided plegia during her brother's funeral. The patient did not have any chest pain. she was referred to our emergency department by emergency medicine service due to being suspicious of cerebrovascular accident (CVA))as code 724). However, owing to low blood pressure and atypical symptoms of the patient, we did rapid ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH) exam in the emergency department to detect aortic dissection. After doing the computed tomography (CT) angiography, the diagnosis of aortic dissection was confirmed. As the vascular surgeon was not present in our surgery department, we transferred the patient to Namazi hospital by air ambulance to undergo the surgery. She was discharged from hospital with complete recovery. Conclusion: Aortic dissection symptoms can be manifested in different ways such as pulmonary embolism, acute coronary syndrome, and CVA. Therefore, clinicians must always have the differential diagnosis of aortic dissection in their mind and be aware of its various manifestations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.