Background Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide and the economic costs of treatment and post-stroke care are extensive. The inability to identify stroke warning signs accurately is an important cause of delay in seeking medical attention, leading to potential ineligibility for acute intervention and which leads to secondary complications. Purpose To identify cardiac patients’ knowledge of stroke risk factors and warning signs. Patients and Methods The institutional based cross-sectional study design was employed. Participants were selected using systematic random sampling. Close-ended questionnaires were pre-tested and validated for consistency before data collection. Then after data collection, data were checked and entered into Epi-data 4.6. Finally, the cleaned data were exported to SPSS version 25 for analysis. Statistical analysis using binary logistic regression was done and Predictors with a p-value of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results A total of 227 patients were included in the study, of which 140 (61.7%) of them identified physical inactivity, followed by hypertension126 (55.5%) as stroke risk factor while 15.4% of them did not know any risk factor of stroke. Amongst the study participants, 45.81% of them had adequate knowledge of stroke risk factors. Regarding stroke warning signs the most identified sign was sudden unilateral weakness 142 (62.6%) while 46 (20.26%) of them did not know at least one warning sign of a stroke. Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis, higher education level AOR 3.05 (95% CI 1.62–5.74) and Urban residence area AOR 2.07 (95% CI 1.05–4.1) were significantly associated with knowledge of stroke risk factors with p-value<0.05. Conclusion Study participants had inadequate knowledge of stroke risk factors and warning signs. Educational status and information about stroke are significantly associated with adequate knowledge of stroke risk factors, raising stroke awareness is the mainstay to reduce stroke burden.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the most common cause of mortality and morbidity globally. This is due to the increasing prevalence of modifiable CVDs risk factors. Hence, the study was aimed to identify knowledge and unhealthy behaviors that contribute to CVD among diabetes mellitus patients. An institutional-based cross-sectional study design was employed among diabetes mellitus patients. A close-ended questionnaire developed from up-to-date similar literature was pretested and face-to-face interview techniques were used to collect data. Checked data were entered into the Epidata 4.1 versions. Then, descriptive and bivariate logistic regression was done using SPSS 25 versions. Of the study participants included in the study, 318, more than half of them, 167(52.5%), were aged ≥45 years and 187(58.8%) of them were females. Among the study participants, more than half, 198(62.3%), had good Knowledge of modifiable CVDs risk factors. Most of the study participants identified consuming foods rich in fats instead of vegetables and fruits 198(62.3%), followed by physical inactivity 196(61.6%) as a risk factor for CVD. Regarding CVDs prevention practice, 175(55.0%) of the patients had a good practice. More than three-fourths, 267(84.0%), practice avoiding foods rich in fats and, sugar, and cigarette smoking 250(78.6%). Predictors like educational status, college and above (AOR 2.68; 95% CI 1.14–6.27), and urban residence area (AOR 1.94; 95% CI 1.09–3.15) were associated with knowledge of CVDs risk factors. While sex, marital status monthly income, and age of the participants had no association with knowledge and prevention practice of modifiable CVDs risk factors. The study participants’ knowledge and prevention practice of modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors was satisfactory, even though continuous awareness creation is required to lower CVD mortality and morbidity burdens. Educational status and residence are of the study participants affect the knowledge and prevention practice modifiable of cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Introduction: Fall injuries are an important public health concern and remain a growing health problem globally. Falls are predicted to rise in rank compared to other causes of death, to become the 17th leading cause of death by 2030 unless necessary intervention is given. Purpose: This study was aimed to assess the pattern, outcomes of fall injuries, and associated factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was employed to review a patient's registration chart from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Data were collected using a structured checklist developed from previous similar studies. The checked data were entered into Epi data 4.1 versions. Then, it was exported to SPSS 25 versions for analysis. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. In the multivariate logistic regression predictors having a P-value < 0.05 were considered to be statistically associated. Results: A total of 331 patients' charts were reviewed. The most common outcome of falling injury was alive 284 (85.8%) while death accounts for 47 (14.2%). Among injured body parts, extremity accounts for around one-fourth, 88 (26.6%), followed by head injury 68 (20.5%). In multivariate logistic regression, those patients aged ≥65 years had 6.15 times more likely to die than those patients aged between 15 and 30 years (AOR 6.15; 95% CI 2.82-14.37, P=0.015), and participants with comorbidity were 1.6 times more likely to die than to be discharged (AOR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01-5.09, P=0.005) due to falling injury, whereas patient's occupation, marital status, and sex had no significant association with outcomes of a fall injury. Conclusion:The most common outcomes of fall injury were discharged with improvement even though there was a high death rate. Extremity injuries were the most common pattern of injury. Fall is high-risk mortality in the older age group. Furthermore, patient with comorbidity, fall from height and injury to spinal cord and poly-trauma is more likely to die relative to other patients.

Introduction The number of oncologic patients visiting the emergency department (ED) is increasing and represent a challenge for the emergency team owing to they might have acute sign and symptoms of a still undiagnosed malignancy, management of treatment-related side effects, co-morbidities, and palliative care. Thus, this study was aimed to identify reasons for ED visits, management outcomes, and associated factors of oncologic patients. Patients and Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from March 11, 2021 to August 25, 2021 at the ED of Jimma University Medical Center on a total of 338 oncologic patients. Data were collected from the patient and the patient’s medical record using a questionnaire developed from up-to-date similar literatures. The questionnaire was started filled out upon diagnosis of cancer and completed during discharge from the ED. The outcomes of the patients were dichotomized into died and survived then, it was analyzed using frequency and bivariate logistic regression. Results The most common reasons for oncologic patients ED visit were neutropenic fever 79 (23.4%) followed by vomiting 38 (11.2%) and electrolyte abnormality 37 (10.9%) respectively. Among oncologic patients visited ED, 137 (40.5%) of them were admitted to ward and 126 (37.3%) of them were discharged with improvement while 64 (18.9%) of them were died. Based on multivariate logistic regression, those patients who had distant metastasis cancer (AOR 1.85; 95% CI 1.03–7.21), comorbidity (AOR 2.56; 95% CI 1.20, 6.96), and ECOG >3 (AOR 2.40; 95% CI 1.25,13.43) were more likely to die than their counterparts. Conclusion Most of the oncologic patients visited ED due to neutropenic fever, nausea and or vomiting, and electrolyte disorder. Amongst oncologic patients who were visited ED, most of them were admitted to ward while around one-fifth of them were died. Having distant metastasis cancer, comorbidity and ECOG >3 were independent predictors of an oncologic patient’s outcome at the ED.

Background The transfer time for critically ill patients from the emergency department (ED) to the Intensive care unit (ICU) must be minimal; however, some factors prolong the transfer time, which may delay intensive care treatment and adversely affect the patient’s outcome. Purpose To identify factors affecting intensive care unit admission of critically ill patients from the emergency department. Patients and methods A cross-sectional study design was conducted from January 13 to April 12, 2020, at the emergency department of Tikur Anbesa Specialized Hospital. All critically ill patients who need intensive care unit admission during the study period were included in the study. A pretested structured questionnaire was adapted from similar studies. The data were collected by chart review and observation. Then checked data were entered into Epi-data version 4.1 and cleaned data was exported to SPSS Version 25 for analysis. Descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Result From the total of 102 critically ill patients who need ICU admission 84.3% of them had prolonged lengths of ED stay. The median length of ED stay was 13.5 h with an IQR of 7–25.5 h. The most common reasons for delayed ICU admission were shortage of ICU beds 56 (65.1%) and delays in radiological examination results 13(15.1%). On multivariate logistic regression p < 0.05 male gender (AOR = 0.175, 95% CI: (0.044, 0.693)) and shortage of ICU bed (AOR = 0.022, 95% CI: (0.002, 0.201)) were found to have a significant association with delayed intensive care unit admission. Conclusion there was a delay in ICU admission of critically ill patients from the ED. Shortage of ICU bed and delay in radiological investigation results were the reasons for the prolonged ED stay.