Background: Surgeons are at high risk of contracting infectious viruses such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) through exposure to patients’ blood. The purpose of this study was to assess the surgeons’ awareness of contracting bloodborne viruses. Methods: A cross-sectional study with a questionnaire distributed to 241 surgeons at King Abdulaziz Medical City - Riyadh (KAMC-R) during the period June 2017 through January 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data collected using Stata®, v14 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA). Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson chi-square test. P-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 241 surgeons answered the questionnaire, 179 (74.3%) surgeons were male and 62 (25.7%) were female. The mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of male surgeons was 35.8 ± 11.0 years while for females was 33.3 ± 9.1 years. The majority of our cohort were vaccinated for HBV (96% in males and 97% in females). Two-thirds of the study cohort did not know the conversion rate post-needlestick injury by HIV, HBV, and HCV. Two-thirds of the study cohort think there is a need for HIV screening before surgery. Mixed answers were received from the cohort when asked about their concern regarding contracting HIV infection from their patients; only one-third of the surgeons were extremely concerned. When asked about the risk of needlestick injury during treating patients positive for HBV, the majority of the surgeons said no. However, a significant difference between the female and male surgeons was found in which 12 of the 62 female surgeons answered yes (19.4%) compared to 11 of the 179 male surgeons (6.1%) (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The majority of our surgeons are vaccinated for HBV. However, female surgeons appear to be at higher risk of needlestick injury from HBV patients. This requires further investigation into the reasons for such high incidents. More education is needed about bloodborne viruses.

This paper aims to explore two approaches to English language: the world Englishes approach and English as a lingua franca approach, focusing on the advantages and limitations of each approach. A brief introduction on the global spread of English language is provided; as well as a thorough examination of the current status of English language in kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The paper also explores the possible future adoption of either World Englishes or English as a Lingua Franca approach in teaching English language to Saudi EFL learners. The examination of the nature of English used by Saudi EFL learners reveals a number of issues. While it is clear that a localized variety is emerging in KSA which is acknowledged by some Saudi researchers, resistance to adopting a Saudi variety in teaching strongly exists among the majority of researchers and decision makers in Saudi Education. The reason behind this reluctance to acknowledge a Saudi variety of English might be the idea that this localized variety of English in KSA is not viewed as equal to varieties of outer circle countries where English language plays far more significant roles than in expanding circle countries. In addition, decisions on adopting one of the two approaches in teaching English language in KSA are not easy; more data must be obtained before making any major pedagogical decisions.

No abstract

Background:Surgeons are at an increased risk of contracting blood-borne pathogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate gender difference, surgical position, surgical experience, and subspecialty regarding surgeons’ compliance to standard precautions.Methods:A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was performed using a purposive sampling. A total of 241 surgeons were surveyed from June 2017 to January 2018.Results:In total, 179 (74.3%) males and 62 (25.7%) females completed the questionnaire. The gender difference was evident when the type of surgery was extremely important in influencing the decision on wearing double gloves (DGs); 108 (60.3%) male surgeons versus 27 (43.5%) female surgeons (P = 0.022). Although a total of 17 (30.3%) surgeons reported being extremely and very concerned about contracting human immunodeficiency virus through their work, they had never tried DG (P = 0.027).Conclusion:This study revealed that the decision of wearing DG was affected by several factors. Surgeons’ decision to wear DG was influenced by the type of surgery. This study showed that most surgeons reported lack of adherence to barrier precaution measures.

No abstract