Some healthcare organizations recommend adopting open visiting policies. These organisations are working towards the end goal of promoting the idea that patients and families can be true partners in care. An essential step in this culture shift involves openness to family presence and their engagement in the patient's care. Among other things, their recommendations are based on data from studies that assessed the impacts of different types of visiting policies on patients, families and healthcare staff. In order to inform and guide an organizational reflection on possible changes to our hospital center's visiting policies, our team undertook a systematic review that focussed on the advantages and disadvantages of open/flexible visiting policies, as perceived by patients, families and staff. Review articles and original articles were assessed and synthesized following a rigorous review process. Results of the reviewed studies suggest that flexible visiting policies lead to greater patient satisfaction with care and to positive impacts for both patients and families, and that these stakeholders have clear preferences for open/flexible policies. Nevertheless, policies including some guidelines to safeguard rest and sleep periods were deemed necessary by patients, rather than an unqualified open policy. Results also suggested that flexible visiting hours were not associated with an increased risk in hospital-acquired infections or septic complications in intensive care units (ICUs), where the majority of the reviewed studies were carried out. Authors recommended taking the specific context of care units into account when implementing new visiting policies, as needs may be different according to different health issues. Staff preferences over a model or the other were somewhat mixed. Some staff see the presence of families and visitors as an obstacle to the provision of care and a reason to fear increased workloads. In order to overcome this resistance, the importance of adequately preparing staff and supporting them throughout the policy change to ensure its success is highlighted.
Membrane binding of proteins such as short chain dehydrogenases reductases or tail-anchored proteins relies on their N-and/or C-terminal hydrophobic transmembrane segment. In this review, we propose guidelines to characterize such hydrophobic peptide segments using spectroscopic and biophysical measurements. The secondary structure content of the C-terminal peptides of retinol dehydrogenase 8, RGS9-1 anchor protein, lecithin retinol acyl transferase, and of the N-terminal peptide of retinol dehydrogenase 11 has been deduced by prediction tools from their primary sequence as well as by using infrared or circular dichroism analyses. Depending on the solvent and the solubilization method, significant structural differences were observed, often involving α-helices. The helical structure of these peptides was found to be consistent with their presumed membrane binding. Langmuir monolayers have been used as membrane models to study lipidpeptide interactions. The values of maximum insertion pressure obtained for all peptides using a monolayer of 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-ethanolamine (DOPE) are larger than the estimated lateral pressure of membranes, thus suggesting that they bind membranes. Polarization modulation infrared reflection absorption spectroscopy has been used to determine the structure and orientation of these peptides in the absence and in the presence of a DOPE monolayer. This lipid induced an increase or a decrease in the organization of the peptide secondary structure. Further measurements are necessary using other lipids to better understand the membrane interactions of these peptides.
IntroductionStroke is one of the leading causes of death in Canada. While stroke care has improved dramatically over the last decade, outcomes following stroke among patients treated in rural hospitals have not yet been reported in Canada.ObjectivesTo describe variation in 30-day post-stroke in-hospital mortality rates between rural and urban academic hospitals in Canada. We also examined 24/7 in-hospital access to CT scanners and selected services in rural hospitals.Materials and methodsWe included Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) data on adjusted 30-day in-hospital mortality following stroke from 2007 to 2011 for all acute care hospitals in Canada excluding Quebec and the Territories. We categorized rural hospitals as those located in rural small towns providing 24/7 emergency physician coverage with inpatient beds. Urban hospitals were academic centres designated as Level 1 or 2 trauma centres. We computed descriptive data on local access to a CT scanner and other services and compared mean 30-day adjusted post-stroke mortality rates for rural and urban hospitals to the overall Canadian rate.ResultsA total of 286 rural hospitals (3.4 million emergency department (ED) visits/year) and 24 urban hospitals (1.5 million ED visits/year) met inclusion criteria. From 2007 to 2011, 30-day in-hospital mortality rates following stroke were significantly higher in rural than in urban hospitals and higher than the Canadian average for every year except 2008 (rural average range = 18.26 to 21.04 and urban average range = 14.11 to 16.78). Only 11% of rural hospitals had a CT-scanner, 1% had MRI, 21% had in-hospital ICU, 94% had laboratory and 92% had basic x-ray facilities.ConclusionRural hospitals in Canada had higher 30-day in-hospital mortality rates following stroke than urban academic hospitals and the Canadian average. Rural hospitals also have very limited local access to CT scanners and ICUs. These rural/urban discrepancies are cause for concern in the context of Canada’s universal health care system.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.