Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards blood donation in Barbados.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain information to devise strategies for a voluntary blood donor mobilisation campaign in Barbados. BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that 100% blood should be collected from voluntary non-remunerated donors (VNRD), yet the majority of blood donations (75%) in Barbados are family/replacement donations. Increasing VNRD is paramount to achieving a safe, reliable blood supply, and understanding the population is a strategy suggested by the WHO to inform donor recruitment and education. METHODS: Participants in Barbados (n = 429) completed a self-administered questionnaire in 2014. The questionnaire comprised 31 questions, including demographics (age, gender, highest educational attainment) and blood donation-related knowledge, attitudes and practices. Analysis of variance, t-test and linear regression were used to analyse data. RESULTS: A total of 53% (n = 219) of participants had previously donated blood; almost half were family/replacement donors, and over one-third (36·2%) were lapsed donors and had not donated within the past 2 years. Knowledge deficits included blood donation requirements, deferral factors and maximum yearly donations. Most participants (79%) were willing to donate with more information. Participants with higher educational attainment and previous donors had higher total knowledge and attitude scores (P < 0·01). Single, female and younger participants were less likely to donate blood (P < 0·05). CONCLUSIONS: Barbados can likely increase voluntary blood donation rates by addressing knowledge deficits through education campaigns and increasing awareness of the need for donation.

Towards an inpatient diabetes curriculum: medical student-generated aims, objectives and methods for ward-based learning of non-critical, non-perioperative inpatient diabetes care.

AIMS: To create a summative document containing aims, objectives and methods that can be used for the training of healthcare professionals in inpatient diabetes care. METHODS: A four-stage approach was introduced for the ward-based teaching of inpatient diabetes care at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill over the 2014-2015 academic year. Within this approach, 55 students (100%) submitted aims, objectives and methods to support two 2-h, ward-based sessions. This was guided by brief instructions and access to a copy of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on the management of non-critical, non-perioperative inpatient diabetes. Conceptual content analysis was used to convert submissions into a unifying document. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from students' submissions: diagnosis; assessment and investigation of diabetes and its complications; planning individualized care and pharmacological management; hypoglycaemia management, including severe hypoglycaemia; patient education; discharge planning; and multidisciplinary teamwork. Students were primarily interested in patient management and treatment using higher-level objectives and active learning methods. CONCLUSIONS: This study produced comprehensive, student-generated, and hence student-centred, aims, objectives and methods for inpatient diabetes care with objectives appropriately set for higher cognitive levels of learning. This material can be used to guide teaching or for further development into a curriculum. This is the first known publication of content that could be used in a ward-based inpatient diabetes curriculum.

A checklist that enhances the provision of education during insulin initiation simulation: a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The study tested the hypothesis that doctors using an insulin information checklist during simulated insulin initiation would impart more information regarding insulin use. METHODS: A total of 128 simulations were conducted. Doctors (n = 64) were recruited from practitioners recently completing internship (n = 19) and those established in primary care (n = 45). Both groups of doctors were strata randomized to control (n = 32) and intervention groups (n = 32), so that each group contained equal numbers. Doctors in each group experienced two identical simulations of insulin initiation with an intervening period of 10 min. Doctors in the intervention arm were introduced to an insulin initiation checklist, which they reviewed independently and utilized in the second simulation. Trained assessors captured the provision of education in 21 predefined educational areas. Differences in the change of the total education provided between the first and second simulations were assessed using linear regression. RESULTS: The difference in the mean change of education provided between the first and second simulations within the 21 educational areas for the control and treatment groups was 9.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1, P < 0.001] - an increase of 46.2%. The difference for the 15 areas relevant to pen use was 7.3 (95% CI: 6.2-8.4, P < 0.001) - an increase of 51.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The checklist resulted in doctors providing significantly more education applicable to syringe and insulin pen routes of insulin administration during simulations. Further research is needed on the checklist's impact on healthcare professionals and patient outcomes in the clinical context. (Clinical Trials Registry No: NCT02266303).