ABSTRACT
The study was carried out to compare the recordings of body temperature using oral mercury thermometer and liquid-crystal forehead thermometer, so as to assess and ascertain the accuracy and validity of the later method. Setting: Hira General Hospital, Abbottabad. Subjects and Materials: Simultaneous recordings were made using the two devices in randomly enrolled 147 patients. The ages of patients ranged from 10 years to 90 years. FeverScan liquid-crystal forehead thermometer, Boots [UK] was used for forehead temperature while Chinese made mercury thermometer [Safety] was used to check oral temperature. Significant difference existed between the recordings of two devices. The mean difference was 1.19 degree F [p<0.001]. FeverScan liquid-crystal forehead thermometer recorded higher temperatures. In patients without pyrexia both devices recorded temperature within normal range. Conclusions: The sensitivity of FeverScan liquid-crystal forehead thermometer to detect fever was comparable to mercury thermometer but was unreliable in grading fever and showed a tendency to over estimate the temperature. It is a good device for home use but health providers should not use it. Mercury thermometer remains the gold standard
Subject(s)
Humans , Thermometers/classification , Skin Temperature , Thermometers/standardsABSTRACT
To check the frequency of prescribing injectable medicines by general practitioners to adult outdoor patients and to identify the factors involved in such practice. Specially designed forms were distributed amongst the leading general practitioners in Hazara division. Data regarding the diagnosis, drug category, route of administration, number of injections prescribed and whether the patient influenced the decision to prescribe were recorded. The names of general practitioners and their patients were not to be mentioned. Findings: Injections from different drug categories were included in 31.88% of the prescriptions. 92.6% of these were for intramuscular, 7% for intravenous, and 0.4% for subcutaneous route. 67.43% of the injections were for myalgias, general debility, joints and connective tissue disorders. 78.64% of such prescriptions included drugs from B-Complex, analgesic and antipyretic group. 64.37% of injections were prescribed on patients request while 10.97% of the injections were to be given once or twice only. Conclusions: There is alarmingly high frequency of prescribing injectable medicines by general practitioners. The drugs most commonly prescribed were not from life saving category and were unnecessary. The request of the patient contributes significantly. Education regarding health hazards in such practice is important. General practitioners have a role to play in limiting the use of injections when oral treatment will suffice