Workplace bullying (WPB) in the healthcare system (HCS), whether perpetrated by healthcare professionals (HCPs) or patients, is a serious problem. The goal of this research study was to find out how common WPB is among HCPs. We conducted a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study in the three public tertiary care hospitals of Karachi, Pakistan from May to October 2020. A validated Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) was used to measure WPB prevalence. The final sample size was 449, out of which 72.4% were females and 27.6% were males. The majority of respondents were house officers or 1st-year trainees who had completed their MBBS ( n = 252, 56.1%). Residents ( n = 197, 43.9%) who were pursuing specialty training made up the remainder of the respondents. As per NAQ-R cut-offs, the prevalence of bullied, being bullied, and not bullied was 41, 29, and 30%, respectively. WPB prevalence was higher in males (53%) than females (38%), whereas it occurred more often in residents (48%) than house officers (36%). We found similar findings while using the self-reported definition for WPB. Based on our findings, we conclude that WPB is pervasive among HCPs, particularly for males and residents in tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of the radiology personnel regarding contrast media used in radiology and the management of associated adverse drug reactions. Methods: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted from 21 February to 31 March 2019 in five major hospitals of Peshawar, Pakistan. A 30-item questionnaire was adopted from the existing literature containing both open and closed-ended questions and the authors conducted a pilot study among 25 participants to assess the face validity of the tool. A universal sampling technique was adopted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings of the study. Results: Less than half of the participants could correctly classify iodinated contrast media used in radiology on the basis of ionicity and osmolaity. Sixty-three percent chose severe contrast material-induced allergic reaction as type I hypersensitivity reaction while almost half of them correctly identified the features of iodinated contrast media associated with lesser side effects. Very few of them (6.7%) had read the ACR 2018 manual on contrast media. Regarding the risk factors for acute adverse reactions and signs/symptoms of anaphylaxis few could answer satisfactorily. Twenty-eight percent of participants correctly identified epinephrine as the initial medication in an anaphylactic reaction. Regarding the preferred route of administration, concentration and dose of epinephrine, the participants’ correct response was quite poor (43.8%, 6.7%, and 8.6%, respectively). More than 65% of participants could name a single intravenous corticosteroid and antihistamine. Conclusion: Radiology personnel’s knowledge regarding contrast material and management of severe contrast material-induced allergic reactions is unsatisfactory.
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.