Introduction All preoperative trauma patients should receive their preoperative medications regardless of being nil per os (NPO). Anticoagulants, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) should be omitted. This is according to both local and national guidelines. We noticed that some preoperative patients have not been receiving their morning medications prior to having their operations. This has led to pre and perioperative complications. The aim of this study, therefore, was to conduct a quality improvement project to assess if preoperative trauma patients are receiving their prescribed medications preoperatively when placed NPO. We then aimed to determine the adverse outcome associated with omission and to furthermore devise a robust system to prevent recurrence. Methods Data were collected from the relevant patients\' drug charts on the day of the operation. These cases were available on the daily trauma list. We evaluated if there was any clear reason documented for not providing the medications. Following the first round, we implemented our action plan for posters to be taped to drug trolleys on the orthopedic wards and informed the nursing staff of the need to give preoperative medications. We deemed the following to be important medication classes: calcium channel blockers, neuromodulators, beta-blockers, anti-epileptics, digoxin, bronchodilators, anti-anginals, anti-epileptics, and benzodiazepines. This was re-audited after one month to assess compliance and monitor for improvement. Results Forty patients were included in the first round and 41 in the re-audit. In the first round, 16/41 (39%) patients received their medications correctly. In patients who did not receive their medications (n=25), 22 had important medication classes omitted. Post implementation of the posters, 25/41 (61%) patients received their medications correctly. In patients who did not receive their medications (n=16), 10 had important medication classes omitted. The main reason why medications were incorrectly not given was that patients were NPO. Conclusion This quality improvement audit shows that our interventions between audit cycles have made a significant improvement in patients receiving their medications and therefore this has a direct positive impact on patient safety and outcomes. We should continue to have a close rapport with the nursing staff to maintain standards of correct practice, and these audit findings should be escalated to the emergency theatre thereafter.

Improving the quality of life for individuals with severe dysphagia is a priority when considering new areas of dysphagia management, especially if this increases opportunities to participate in social activities associated with eating and drinking. Edible foam is widely researched and available in the food industry; however, the use of edible foam within the field of dysphagia remains unexplored. Despite no research published on effectiveness and safety, a commercial product currently on the market is widely distributed across both Europe and the UK, including 28 NHS Trusts, suggesting that it is increasingly being used in clinical practice.
To explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare professionals on the use of stabilized edible foam (SEF) with adults with severe dysphagia in order to inform areas for future research in this novel dysphagia intervention.
Healthcare professionals were recruited using purposeful sampling and snowballing technique. A total of 56 healthcare professionals were initially approached, of which 10 completed the semi-structured interviews. Interview questions were developed from a topic guide and a pilot questionnaire.
Thematic analysis was used to identify three themes: potential impact, consideration of risk and perceived experiences. Overarching each of these themes was the element of the unknown.
Use of SEF with adults with dysphagia is in its infancy. Whilst results indicate that some clinicians are embracing this novel approach, others express concerns. Therefore, further research is needed, particularly in relation of direct experience of individuals and contra-indications.
What is already known on the subject The use of SEF with individuals with swallowing problems is a relatively novel area of dysphagia intervention in the UK. There are currently no published studies on its effectiveness and safety profile. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study provides valuable preliminary work into the area of SEF and adults with severe dysphagia, capturing the experience and perceptions of healthcare professions who have an awareness of SEF. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Increasing clinicians and researcher\'s awareness of this novel area of dysphagia management.

暂无摘要。

Recent clinical studies have shown that nasogastric tube feeding is safe in the majority of patients with acute pancreatitis. Patient-reported outcomes are important, but the impact of nasogastric tube feeding on the quality of life has not been investigated. This study aims to compare quality of life between nasogastric tube feeding and nil-by-mouth groups during and after hospitalization.
Patient-reported outcomes were recorded daily in a patient diary during hospitalization. The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale questionnaire was used to determine patients\' quality of life. The patients were then followed up at 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.
While 17 patients were randomized to nasogastric tube feeding, 18 were put on nil-by-mouth. The overall quality of life and individual domains did not differ significantly between the groups during hospitalization (P = .500) or follow-up. For the entire cohort, individual quality-of-life domains during hospitalization improved significantly, including functional impairment (P < .001), pain (P < .001), sleep (P = .035), and psychological function (P < .001). Quality of life further improved for all patients from time of hospital discharge to 3 (P = .002) and 6 months follow-up (P < .001) but not to 1 week and 1 month.
The use of nasogastric tube feeding, in comparison with nil-by-mouth, does not impair patients\' quality of life. Given the clinical benefits of nasogastric tube feeding, nasogastric feeding should be considered the first-line approach in all acute pancreatitis patients requiring enteral nutrition.