ABSTRACT
Background Variance in the deployment of the trauma team to the emergency department (ED) can result in patient treatment delays and excess burden on ED personnel. Characteristics of trauma patients, including mechanism of injury, injury type, and age, have been associated with differences in trauma resource deployment. Therefore, this retrospective, single-site study aimed to examine the deployment patterns of trauma resources, the characteristics of the trauma patients associated with levels of trauma resource deployment, and the deployment impact on ED workforce utilization and non-trauma ED patients. Methodology This was an investigator-initiated, single-institution, retrospective cohort study of all patients designated as a trauma response and admitted to a community hospital's ED from July 01, 2019, through July 01, 2022. Results Resource deployment for trauma patients varied by mechanism of injury (p < 0.001), injury type (p < 0.001), and patient age groups (p < 0.001). Specifically, there was a lower average trauma activation for geriatric trauma patients with a fall as a mechanism of injury compared to all younger patient groups with any mechanism of injury (F(5) = 234.49, p < 0.001). In the subsample, there was an average of 3.35 ED registered nurses (RNs) allocated to each trauma patient. Additionally, the ED RNs were temporarily reallocated from an average of 4.09 non-trauma patients to respond to trauma patients, despite over a third of the trauma patients in the subsample being the trauma patients being discharged home from the ED. Conclusions Trauma activation responses need to be standardized with a specific plan for geriatric fall patients to ensure efficient use of trauma and ED personnel resources.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer is a life-threatening global problem with high incidence rates. Prioritizing the prevention of cancer, chemopreventive agents have drawn much attention from the researchers. OBJECTIVE: This review focuses on the discussion of the progress in the development of chemopreventive agents and formulations related to the prevention of oral cancer. METHODS: In this perspective, an extensive literature survey was carried out to understand the mechanism, control and chemoprevention of oral cancer. Different patented agents and formulations have also exhibited cancer preventive efficacy in experimental studies. This review summarizes the etiology of oral cancer and developments in prevention strategies. RESULTS: The growth of oral cancer is a multistep activity necessitating the accumulation of genetic as well as epigenetic alterations in key regulatory genes. Many risk factors are associated with oral cancer. Genomic technique for sequencing all tumor specimens has been made available to help detect mutations. The recent development of molecular pathway and genetic tools has made the process of diagnosis easier, better forecast and efficient therapeutic management. Different chemical agents have been studied for their efficacy to prevent oral cancer and some of them have shown promising results. CONCLUSION: Use of chemopreventive agents, either synthetic or natural origin, to prevent carcinogenesis is a worthy concept in the management of cancers. Preventive measures are helpful in controlling the occurrence or severity of the disease. The demonstrated results of preventive agents have opened an arena for the development of promising chemopreventive agents in the management of oral squamous cell carcinoma.
