Introduction: disasters are ecological or emergency situations that are most of the organizations and institution's potential. And the resulting to enormous financial and physical losses. Hospitals as the important health institutions should be ready before the events of sufficiently, to be able to cope with emergencies, ensuring rapid response to the incident. Based on a survey to determine the level of preparedness to deal with disasters in one of the selected hospitals in Tehran. Materials and Methods:This descriptive study was conducted in selected hospitals in Tehran. In order to prepare the hospital was used in 10 scopes by a 210-item check list that in a study made previously and face and content validity and reliability was assessed.Results: Amount of preparation of the study hospital in the department's traffic 33.3% In the category of weak and units of acceptance, communication, education and transport, discharge respectively, with an average 41.7%, 50%, 41.2%, 46.7% was assessed average level Other areas include the emergency department, security, support, staffing and management, respectively, with an mean 66.7%, 64.7%64.3%61.9% and 68.2% which were rated as good. Discussion and conclusions:Based on the results obtained in this study showed the level of hospital preparedness is average however, due to the important role of hospitals in crisis seems most dedication of the managers to training and planning demand to increase the level of preparedness in times of crisis.

Background. The proper implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is crucial in saving patients. Purpose. This study was aimed at evaluating the difference in educating nursing students on CPR when using the traditional simulation training with a mannequin versus a more novel serious game training on the smartphone platform. Methods. This randomized control trial was conducted in 2018-2019. Through purposive sampling, 56 nursing students were selected and randomly assigned to three groups: a simulation-based CPR training, CPR training using a serious game on the smartphone platform, and a control group that received no CPR training. Each student was evaluated pre- and posttraining on CPR knowledge and skill. Results. Both the simulation and serious game training groups increased CPR abilities two weeks after training. The control group did not show improvement in skill or knowledge of CPR. The simulation and serious game intervention groups demonstrated better scores on the knowledge questionnaire and on the CPR skill demonstration in comparison to the control group. However, the simulation group and the serious game group showed no significant difference in knowledge ( 9.55 ± 2.81 vs. 7.77 ± 2.46 ; p = 0.065 ) or CPR skill demonstration ( 27.17 ± 2.81 vs. 25.72 ± 3.98 ; p = 0.988 ). The overall scores for CPR knowledge did not meet minimum expectations (70% score) in either the simulation (47.75%) or serious game (38.85%) group. However, both groups demonstrated adequate CPR skill on demonstration (simulation 87.64% and serious game 83.06%). Conclusions. Both the simulation and serious game training groups were found to increase CPR skill. CPR training would likely benefit from a multimodal approach to education.

BACKGROUND: Over 70% of patients hospitalised in an intensive care unit (ICU) often experience moderate to severe pain due to pre-existing diseases, trauma, surgery, aggressive procedures, and routine ICU care. Many patients hospitalised in ICU are not able to speak and express their pain due to various causes, including mechanical ventilation, reduced consciousness, and administration of sedative drugs. Therefore, the use of observational and behavioural pain tools is recommended in this group of patients given their inability to express pain. AIM: To examine the existing observational and behavioural tools for assessment of in Nonverbal Intubated Critically Adult Patients after Open-Heart Surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of available observational and behavioural tools for assessment of pain was undertaken using the COSMIN checklist. A literature search was conducted using the following databases: Ovid, Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed, and CINHAL databases, Google Scholar search engine as well as Persian resources Sid, Magiran, Iran doc, and IranMedex up to the end of 2017 were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies that had examined five tools used in intensive care units after cardiac surgery in patients under mechanical ventilation were reviewed. Each of the five tools included behavioural and observational items, and only one tool had physiological items. All the tools had been evaluated regarding validity and reliability. In the three tools, sensitivity, specificity, responsiveness, and satisfaction were considered. CONCLUSION: Based on available evidence and investigations, CPOT and BPS tools have good validity and reliability to be used in pain assessment in Nonverbal Intubated Critically Adult Patients after Open-Heart Surgery. The NVPS tool requires more studies to be further confirmed before the assessment of pain in this group of patients.

Introduction: Safe and efficacious vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), would contribute to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we examined this question that if there is an association between the incidence of side effects and the COVID-19 breakthrough infections. Material and Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted for two months from June 22 to August 22, 2021. The study method was complete enumeration and 1474 healthcare workers who were medical staff of seven hospitals in Tehran and were vaccinated with one of the AstraZeneca, Covaxin, Sputnik V, and Sinopharm vaccines. Two main questions of this questionnaire were the occurrence or non-occurrence of any side effects after receiving the vaccines and the presence or absence of COVID-19 infection after vaccination. Results: According to the results obtained, in recipients vaccinated with Sinopharm vaccine, the group that reported at least one side effects after receiving the vaccine had a significantly higher COVID-19 infection than the group reported no side effects after vaccination (P<0.001) (RR=4.55). Also in whole sample study Participants who have reported one or more side effect after COVID-19 vaccination, had 3.7 times higher risk of breakthrough infection than others (P<0.001); However Among those vaccinated with AstraZeneca, Covaxin and Sputnik vaccines, no significant difference was observed between the groups with and without side effects after vaccination in terms of later COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: It seems that participants who have reported one or more side effect after COVID-19 vaccination, had times higher risk of breakthrough infection than others.

No abstract