Healthcare delivery is reliant on a team-based approach, and interprofessional education (IPE) provides a means by which such collaboration skills can be fostered prior to entering the workplace. IPE within healthcare programs has been associated with improved collaborative behavior, patient care and satisfaction, reduced clinical error, and diminished negative professional stereotypes. An intensive interprofessional gross anatomy dissection course was created in 2009 to facilitate IPE at McMaster University. Data were collected from five cohorts over five years to determine the influence of this IPE format on the attitudes and perceptions of students towards other health professions. Each year, 28 students from the medicine, midwifery, nursing, physician's assistant, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy programs were randomly assigned into interprofessional teams for 10 weeks. Sessions involved an anatomy and scope-of-practice presentation, a small-group case-based session, and a dissection. A before/after design measured changes in attitudes and perceptions, while focus group data elaborated on the student experience with the course. Pre- and postmatched data revealed significant improvements in positive professional identity, competency and autonomy, role clarity and attitudes toward other health professions. Qualitative analysis of intraprofessional focus group interviews revealed meaningful improvements in a number of areas including learning anatomy, role clarity, and attitudes towards other health professions.
Background
Surgical site infection (SSI) is common in colorectal surgery patients and associated with morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend preoperative intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis with aerobic and anaerobic coverage to reduce SSI risk. Cephalosporin based prophylaxis (CBP) regimens are recommended as first-line prophylaxis, and non-cephalosporin based are recommended as alternative prophylaxis (AP). We evaluate the efficacy of CBP versus AP in preventing surgical site infections in colorectal surgery patients.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of studies published between 2005 and 2020 in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Studies were excluded if intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis was not administered, or if oral and intravenous prophylaxis were routinely co-administered. Heterogeneity was reported using the Q-statistic and I
2
-statistic. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger test for small study effects. Statistical significance was defined as a two-sided
p
< 0.05.
Results
11 studies met inclusion criteria. AP was not associated with increased SSI risk at 30 days compared to CBP (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13; OR < 1 favors AP). There was no effect size variability in subgroup analysis comparing higher-to lower-quality studies (I
2
= 99%,
P
= 0.17). Subgroup analysis by publication year approached a significant difference in effect size between studies published prior to 2014 and later than 2014 (I
2
= 99%,
P
= 0.06).
Conclusions
Meta-analysis of 11 studies of SSI risk in adult colorectal surgery patients suggest that SSI risk is similar for patients receiving CBP or AP, subgroup analysis of studies published since 2014 suggest increased SSI risk with AP compared to CBP.
Background and Objectives: Adhesive capsulitis(AC) is a condition commonly affecting the shoulder with 2% prevalence, causing insidious pain and restriction of active as well as passive gleno-humeral movement. This study compares the effectiveness of Kaltenborn mobilization versus Mulligan's MWM technique for AC of the shoulder.Method: 56 participants were randomly allocated in Group M and Group K for the shoulder. SPADI and shoulder ROM were used as outcome measures. These were recorded at baseline and at the end of 2 weeks post treatment.Results: Statistically significant (p<0.05) improvements were found in Group K with respect to SPADI scores, while the same was observed in ROM although not statistically significant.
Conclusion:Pain and disability along with ROM improved in both groups.
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.