The net effect of wealth on health-Investigating noncommunicable diseases mortality in the context of regional affluence.

The wealth-health relationship is not unambiguous and constant. Greater wealth affects individual and population health in opposite ways. Increased risk factors especially raise the probability of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) impacting a population. Conversely, better healthcare and awareness reduce the chances of developing these diseases or increase the likelihood of treatment and cure. Therefore, this paper aims to assess and quantify the hard-to-grasp overall impact of prosperity on mortality from selected NCDs, allowing us to capture the relevant differences between European regions. In particular, we attempt to estimate the net effect of affluence and the health economic threshold of the GDP-mortality relationship, by developing a dedicated analytical tool based on joinpoint regression and forecasting methods. Our results show that in the case of most investigated diseases in more impoverished regions, a clear pattern reflects mortality rising with prosperity. After crossing the health economic threshold of around 20 thousand euros per capita, the trend changes by stabilising or reversing. The research we present shows that health policy should be more diversified locally to enable health convergence at the national and European regional levels. Moreover, health policy should evolve to prioritise mental and neurological disorders, by improving the resource allocation and increasing public awareness.

Do surgeons use double gloves during surgery? Results of a survey.

<b>Introduction:</b> The perforation of gloves during surgical procedures is quite common. A cheap and quite effective method of reducing the risk of blood-borne infections is wearing two pairs of gloves. Unfortunately, some surgeons are reluctant to it, and they report decreased dexterity and sensation. The aim of the study was to evaluate surgeons' double-gloving practices to determine the factors related to compliance. <br><b>Material and methods:</b> An anonymous, 21-question survey in Polish was sent by post to 41 surgical departments. The questions concerned: demographic data, type of surgical gloves used, allergy to latex, number of surgeries performed, frequency of using double gloves and negative impressions from using them and finally, the frequency of needlestick injuries during surgical procedures. <br><b>Results:</b> We received 179 questionnaires back. More than 62% of the surgeons believe that double gloves provide better protection than a single pair, 24% do not believe in this, and 14% have no opinion. Only 0.6% of respondents always use double gloves during surgery, 19% double glove in at least 25% of cases and 68% do it occasionally. 13% of the surgeons declared that they had never worn double gloves. During high-risk procedures, 86% of respondents wear double gloves. About half of respondents (50.3%) report discomfort while wearing double gloves; 45% - decreased dexterity; about 30% complain of numbness and tingling; and 64% - decreased sensation. <br><b>Conclusion:</b> Due to the high number of surgical glove perforations and relatively high prevalence of needlestick injuries, it is necessary to use methods that reduce the risk of transmission of pathogens. The habit of using a double pair of gloves should be implemented especially among young surgeons starting to train in their specialities. Consequently, the period of initial discomfort will be combined with the acquisition of surgical skills, which will allow for gradual acclimatization.

The Value of Scoring Systems for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

UNLABELLED: Accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) is still a problem and is not always easy, even for experienced surgeons. Studies have shown that 20 to 30% of the appendices removedwere normal. Therefore, various scoring systems have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of doubtful cases and reduce the number of unnecessary appendectomies. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of different scoring systems in acute appendicitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved 94 patients who underwent laparotomy due to suspected acute appendicitis. Medical examination at hospital admission was performed by a resident and a general surgery specialist. The probability of AA was evaluated using six different scoring systems: Alvarado, Fenyo, Eskelinen, Ohman, Tzankis, and RIPASA. The resident calculated the results in individual systems. The decision to perform the operation was taken by a specialist surgeon who did not know the results. RESULTS: Normal appendix was removed in 26% of cases. Eskelinen, RIPASA and Alvarado systems showed highest sensitivity (99%, 88% and 85%, respectively). Tzankis and Fenyo systems showed highest specificity (62% and 50%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown limited value of scoring systems for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The systems may improve diagnostic accuracy as they require obtaining a more detailed medical history, and making a more thorough and organized data analysis. However, the scoring systems should be treated only as an aid to diagnosis.