No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveTo ascertain patient acceptance of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) in the National Health Service (NHS).MethodsA survey was devised using a 5-point Likert scale for questions related to ISBCS, which patients undertook during their cataract outpatient appointment pre-COVID-19 lockdown and by telephone during the lockdown.ResultsQuestionnaires were completed for 267 patients. Most respondents were aged over 71 (51%) and were female individuals (60%). Forty-five per cent agreed/strongly agreed with opting for ISBCS. A positive correlation was identified between opting for ISBCS and convenience to the patient (r=0.76, p<0.01) and family/carer/partner (r=0.71, p<0.01) and wanting to limit numbers of hospital visits (r=0.57, p<0.01). Fifty per cent agreed/strongly agreed that they were worried about the risk of simultaneous bilateral ocular complications, with this correlating with being less likely to opt for ISBCS (r=−0.49, p<0.01) and being scared of ISBCS (r=0.67, p<0.01). During COVID-19 lockdown, patients were less likely to want to minimise the time taken off work (p<0.05) and less intolerant of a prolonged hospital visit (p<0.05). Only 23% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that they had familiarity with ISBCS.ConclusionsISBCS was acceptable to 45% of our sampled population, suggesting limited routine implementation in the NHS is possible. Convenience and reduction in hospital visits appeared to contribute to this acceptance. Half of the patients expressed concern regarding bilateral complications and such concerns need addressing. Some attitudes did appear to change during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The familiarity of the concept of ISBCS is low suggesting the need for patient education.

Aims: To assess and compare the out of hours and in hours management of occupational blood and body fluid exposures in a London teaching hospital. Methods: The occupational health and accident and emergency records of individuals presenting with occupational body fluid exposures over a six month period at a London teaching hospital were analysed retrospectively. Main outcome measures were the completeness of records, and the appropriate management of body fluid exposures using the Department of Health guidelines as the gold standard. Results: A total of 177 body fluid exposures were reported; 109 (61.58%) were initially assessed in the occupational health department, and 68 (38.42%) in the accident and emergency department. Of those originally assessed in the accident and emergency department, only 21 (30.88%) attended the occupational health department for follow up. Occupational health staff were more consistent in assessing and managing exposures, and in a higher proportion of cases gave more appropriate advice on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) against hepatitis B and HIV. Of the 11 individuals prescribed HIV PEP (all by accident and emergency staff), only three subsequently attended occupational health for follow up. In all three cases therapy was discontinued, as the source was HIV negative or the exposure low risk. Conclusions: Out of hours management of occupational body fluid exposures, particularly the prescribing of HIV PEP, was inconsistent with in hours practice. This may also be the case in other large inner city hospitals offering a similar service.