Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
2.
Eye (Lond) ; 38(7): 1349-1354, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38155328

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Climate change is arguably the greatest threat to global health of the 21st century. Although cataract surgery is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, recent literature review identified a paucity of evidence-based strategies for improving the environmental impact of cataract services. Our study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a departmental Delphi process for improving cataract services' environmental sustainability. METHODS: All members of ophthalmology theatre teams in a UK teaching hospital were invited to participate in a three-stage Delphi process. Team members were surveyed for suggestions for reducing the department's environmental impact. Suggested interventions were refined during a plenary face-to-face discussion and ranked. The highest ranked interventions were combined into a mutually agreed action plan. Data on the economic and environmental cost of cataract services was collected prior to and six months after the Delphi process using the Eyefficiency mobile application. RESULTS: Twenty-three interventions were suggested by a range of staff cadres. Interventions were ranked by 24 team members. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 11th ranked interventions were combined into an "Eco-packs" project in collaboration with suppliers (Bausch + Lomb), saving 675 kg of waste and 350 kg of CO2 equivalent annually. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process is an effective method for provoking departmental engagement with the sustainability agenda that we would encourage all ophthalmology departments to consider utilising. The baseline per case CO2 equivalent measured in our department was reproducible and could serve as a maximum benchmark to be improved upon.


Subject(s)
Carbon Footprint , Cataract Extraction , Delphi Technique , Humans , United Kingdom , Climate Change , Ophthalmology
3.
Br J Ophthalmol ; 2023 Jun 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37344124

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Primary corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) stabilises 96% of progressive keratoconus. There is limited evidence for the treatment of choice when this fails. We present 10 years of repeat CXL and compare with our published experience of primary CXL to (1) identify perioperative risk factors of primary CXL failure and (2) demonstrate the safety and efficacy of repeat CXL. METHODS: Patients undergoing repeat accelerated epithelium-off CXL at St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK January 2012-August 2022 were identified through electronic patient record, and compared with a previously published cohort of primary CXL patients at the same site. RESULTS: Twenty-one eyes underwent repeat CXL. The mean interval between primary and repeat CXL treatments was 47.1 months (SD 22.5). Twenty (95%) eyes stabilised after repeat CXL at a mean follow-up of 29.9 months. These cases were compared with 151 cases of primary CXL from our previous study. Patients failing primary CXL were significantly younger (21.3 years (SD 7.0) vs 26.7 years (SD 6.5), p=0.0008). Repeat CXL and primary CXL induced a similar amount of flattening of Kmax (-1.2 D (SD 3.9) vs -0.7 D (SD 4.4), p=0.22). A small, but clinically insignificant, improvement in best-corrected visual acuity was found in the repeat CXL group (-0.04 (SD 0.17) vs -0.05 (SD 0.13), p=0.04). No complications of repeat CXL were noted. CONCLUSION: Younger age may be associated with failure of primary CXL. Repeat CXL is an effective and safe treatment for progressive keratoconus despite primary CXL.

4.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 22(4): 332-339, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35882481

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is usually rapid in onset and may cause death. It is characterised by the rapid development of airway and/or breathing and/or circulation problems. Intramuscular adrenaline is the most important treatment, although, even in healthcare settings, many patients do not receive this intervention contrary to guidelines. The Resuscitation Council UK published an updated guideline in 2021 with some significant changes in recognition, management, observation and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. This is a concise version of the updated guideline.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/drug therapy , Emergency Treatment/adverse effects , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Humans , Resuscitation/adverse effects
5.
Resuscitation ; 163: 86-96, 2021 Apr 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33895231

ABSTRACT

The Resuscitation Council UK has updated its Guideline for healthcare providers on the Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. As part of this process, an evidence review was undertaken by the Guideline Working Group, using an internationally-accepted approach for adoption, adaptation, and de novo guideline development based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework, referred to as GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. A number of significant changes have been made, which will be reflected in the updated Guideline. These include: emphasis on repeating intramuscular adrenaline doses after 5 min if symptoms of anaphylaxis do not resolve; corticosteroids (e.g. hydrocortisone) no longer being routinely recommended for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis; interventions for reactions which are refractory to initial treatment with adrenaline; a recommendation against the use of antihistamines for the acute management of anaphylaxis; and guidance relating to the duration of observation following anaphylaxis, and timing of discharge.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...