ABSTRACT
Introduction: This review aimed to compile a list of essential variables from the patient assessment, care provided out-of-hospital and the patient handover over process that should be recorded on a Patient Report Form (PRF). A scoping review was conducted to identify articles concerning the recording of medical information on the PRF in the prehospital environment. Methods: A three-step search strategy was used to systemically search published literature. A Boolean method using synonymous phrases related to patient handover variables required for PRF competition was developed based on an initial online search of key phrases. Using the Boolean phrase, a scoping review (guided by a protocol developed a priori) was conducted. The search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Summon and Scopus. A PCC framework was used to guide the inclusion criteria of identified articles. Results: The database search yielded 2461 results. Duplicates (n = 736), articles published prior to the year 2000 (n = 260), and non-English results (n = 30) were removed. The remaining 1435 articles underwent title and abstract screening to determine the relevance to the study topic. This resulted in articles apparently relevant to the study (n = 47) and these underwent full-text review. Following full-text review 25 articles were included in the study. Patient related information and variables detailing the condition of the patient, including, patient demographics, vital signs, patient assessment and treatment initiated and the manner in which this information is transferred during the patient handover are factors that are important during patient hand over. Conclusion: The information on the PRF prevents potential loss of critical patient information and details of the patient's condition and treatment from the prehospital field. The development of an appropriate checklist to quality assure PRF's by ensuring that all vital information is captured on the PRF is proposed.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe efficacy and safety profile of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have not been definitively established in immunocompromised patient populations. Patients with a known cancer diagnosis were hitherto excluded from trials of the vaccines currently in clinical use. MethodsThis study presents data on the safety and immune efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in 54 healthy controls and 151 mostly elderly patients with solid and haematological malignancies, respectively, and compares results for patients who were boosted with BNT162b2 at 3 weeks versus those who were not. Immune efficacy was measured as antibody seroconversion, T cell responses, and neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain and of a variant of concern (VOC) (B.1.1.7). We also collected safety data for the BNT162b2 vaccine up to 5 weeks following first dose. FindingsThe vaccine was largely well tolerated. However, in contrast to its very high performance in healthy controls (>90% efficacious), immune efficacy of a single inoculum in solid cancer patients was strikingly low (below 40%) and very low in haematological cancer patients (below 15%). Of note, efficacy in solid cancer patients was greatly and rapidly increased by boosting at 21-days (95% within 2 weeks of boost). Too few haematological cancer patients were boosted for clear conclusions to be drawn. ConclusionsDelayed boosting potentially leaves most solid and haematological cancer patients wholly or partially unprotected, with implications for their own health; their environment and the evolution of VOC strains. Prompt boosting of solid cancer patients quickly overcomes the poor efficacy of the primary inoculum in solid cancer patients. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSome cancer patients have been shown to exhibit sustained immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion and prolonged viral shedding as a consequence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Consequently, their exclusion and, in particular, the exclusion of patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapies, from the registry trials of the 5 approved COVID-19 vaccines raises questions about the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in this patient population. In addition, whilst the change in the UKs dosing interval to 12-weeks aimed to maximise population coverage, it is unclear whether this strategy is appropriate for cancer patients and those on systemic anti-cancer therapies. Added value of this studyWe report that the RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine administered in cancer patients was well tolerated, and we provide first insights into both antibody and T cell responses to the vaccine in an immunocompromised patient population. Implications of all the available evidenceIn cancer patients, one dose of 30ug of BNT162b2 yields poor vaccine efficacy, as measured by seroconversion rates, viral neutralisation capacity and T cell responses, at 3- and 5-weeks following the first inoculum. Patients with solid cancers exhibited a significantly greater response following a booster at 21-days. These data support prioritisation of cancer patients for an early (21-day) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Given the globally poor responses to vaccination in patients with haematological cancers, post-vaccination serological testing, creation of herd immunity around these patients using a strategy of ring vaccination, and careful follow-up should be prioritised.
ABSTRACT
Provides a general review of the signs and symptoms of heat stress, heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Also includes a summary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human recommendations to avoid heat related illnesses.
