Search

A novel strategy involving Olive Leaf Extract (OLE) and Cold Atmospheric Plasma (CAP) was developed as a green antimicrobial treatment. Specifically, we reported a preliminary investigation on the combined use of OLE + CAP against three pathogens, chosen to represent medical and food industries (i.e., E. coli, S. aureus and L. innocua). The results indicated that a concentration of 100 mg/mL (total polyphenols) in OLE can exert an antimicrobial activity, but still insufficient for a total bacterial inactivation. By using plain OLE, we significantly reduced the growth of Gram positive S. aureus and L. innocua, but not Gram-negative E. coli. Instead, we demonstrated a remarkable decontamination effect of OLE + CAP in E. coli, S. aureus and L. innocua samples after 6 h. This effect was optimally maintained up to 24 h in S. aureus strain. E. coli and L. innocua grew again in 24 h. In the latter strain, OLE alone was most effective to significantly reduce bacterial growth. By further adjusting the parameters of OLE + CAP technology, e.g., OLE amount and CAP exposure, it could be possible to prolong the initial powerful decontamination over a longer time. Since OLE derives from a bio-waste and CAP is a non-thermal technology based on ionized air, we propose OLE + CAP as a potential green platform for bacterial decontamination. As a combination, OLE and CAP can lead to better antimicrobial activity than individually and may replace or complement conventional thermal procedures in food and biomedical industries.

Objectives: Falls are persistent among community-dwelling older adults despite existing prevention guidelines. We described how urban and rural primary care staff and older adults manage fall risk and factors important to integration of computerized clinical decision support (CCDS). Methods: Interviews, contextual inquiries, and workflow observations were analyzed using content analysis and synthesized into a journey map. Sociotechnical and PRISM domains were applied to identify workflow factors important to sustainable CCDS integration. Results: Participants valued fall prevention and described similar approaches. Available resources differed between rural and urban locations. Participants wanted evidence-based guidance integrated into workflows to bridge skills gaps. Discussion: Sites described similar clinical approaches with differences in resource availability. This implies that a single intervention would need to be flexible to environments with differing resources. Electronic Health Record's inherent ability to provide tailored CCDS is limited. However, CCDS middleware could integrate into different settings and increase evidence use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Next generation" issues are attracting considerable attention in higher education (HE) policy and programming. This is particularly true in Africa, where depleted academic capacity, insufficient levels of doctorate-qualified staff, and the steady retirement of many experienced lecturers and researchers place a particular urgency on identifying, training and nurturing new cohorts of research and teaching staff across the continent's HE and research institutions. Recent contributions to the debate have also raised concerns about the extent to which doctoral study has been "casualised", interrupted by the demands of employment, and hampered by inadequate supervision and support to develop and undertake research, resulting in fragmentary research and long times to completion. This paper presents the results of a survey of African and European doctoral students alongside a desk review of current funding programmes, bringing new evidence to this debate, particularly around what it is to be a doctoral student in different regions of Africa and how this is currently supported. In doing so, it highlights issues to be considered in future programmes to strengthen doctoral study.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this study was to prospectively assess caregiver-perceived barriers to accessing post-acute care for their injured child and determine if caregivers report ongoing, unmet health needs for their children after trauma. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This was a prospective cohort study that followed 50 participants for 6 months and administered surveys to parents of children who are admitted to a pediatric level 1 trauma center for injury. Surveys were given bi-weekly regarding care children received after hospital discharge. At 3 months, parents were surveyed over the phone on whether they were able to access all needed health services and if there were any perceived barriers to obtaining or providing at-home care. At 6 months, parents were given the Child & Family Follow-up Survey to assess ongoing physical, mental, social, and scholastic needs. Free responses and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis and frequencies are reported for discrete data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Out of 50 families recruited, 47 completed follow-up assessments. At 3 months, common themes regarding challenges after hospital discharge included difficulty scheduling specialist care; uncertainty in managing their child’s pain; transitioning home without enough knowledge to meet their child’s medical needs; lack of communication between multiple providers; distress at having providers release children to full activities before caregivers were comfortable. At 6 months, approximately 24% of parents reported children had ongoing cognitive limitations, 29% reported emotional problems, 19% reported physical limitations, 33.3% reported difficulty in school, and 15% reported play/social difficulties. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Evidence suggests families face significant barriers in accessing follow-up care, despite nearly universal health insurance coverage for children. Further, a large percentage of parents report ongoing health needs, despite the majority of the cohort having only mild or moderate severity injuries. Making follow-up care more patient-centered for families of traumatically injured children may improve compliance with medical regiments and reduce the likelihood of future disability. Examples of this may be coordinating care among multiple specialty providers, so that patients with multiple injuries can schedule multiple follow-up appointments on the same day. Additionally, more caregiver education on administering pain medication, caring for wounds, and safe practices for returning to full activities would be beneficial for families.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Research overview: Providing patient-centered care is increasingly a top priority in the U.S. healthcare system.1,2 Hospitals are required to publicly report patient-centered assessments, including results from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient satisfaction surveys.3 Furthermore, clinician and hospital reimbursements are partially determined by performance on patient satisfaction measures.3 Consequently, hospitals and clinicians may be incentivized to improve patient satisfaction scores over other important outcomes.4 Paradoxically then, the pursuit of patient-centered care may lead clinicians to fulfill patient requests for unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.5 Opioid prescribing during hospitalizations may be particularly affected by clinicians’ seeking to optimize patient satisfaction scores.6,7 Satisfaction with pain care is an important predictor of overall patient satisfaction in the HCAHPS surveys,8,9 and clinicians report increased pressure to fulfill patient requests for immediate pain-relief.10,11 Therefore, clinicians may prescribe opioids to avoid receiving lower patient satisfaction scores.12,13 Furthermore, clinicians lack clear guidance on opioid prescribing for some populations, including non-surgical inpatients, who represent almost half of all hospitalizations.14 To reduce clinicians’ incentive to prescribe opioids as a means of achieving patient satisfaction, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) temporarily removed questions related to patient satisfaction with pain care from the clinician and hospital reimbursement formulas beginning in 2018.15 Importantly, prior research16-20 has not rigorously tested the hypothesis implied by the CMS policy change: that certain opioid prescribing practices in inpatient pain care are associated with higher patient satisfaction. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the receipt/dose of opioids during non-surgical hospitalizations and patient satisfaction measured by the HCAHPS survey. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods/Study Population: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study of adults (18 and older) with non-surgical hospitalizations within the 11-hospital healthcare system in a Midwestern state from 2011-2016. Data were extracted from electronic health records and linked to HCAHPS patient satisfaction surveys. We estimated the propensity score for receipt of any opioids during hospitalization and separately the receipt of high dose opioids (≥100 morphine milligram equivalent [MME]) based on patient, encounter, and facility characteristics for all hospitalizations with complete data. We used nearest neighbor matching to construct two matched samples to minimize selection bias and confounding by indication. We used a standardized difference threshold of < 0.1 as an indication of the balance between matched groups. Outcomes were compared with a test on the equality of proportions using large-sample statistics. All analysis was performed in STATA 14.0 analytical software. Main outcomes: We analyzed four dependent variables. Two pain-specific patient satisfaction variables were derived from the responses to the following survey questions: 1) “During this hospital stay, how often your pain was well controlled? (pain control)” and 2) “During this hospital stay, how often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help you with your pain? (pain help)”, with 4-point Likert scale responses ranging from “Never” to “Always.” We also used two global satisfaction measures derived from the responses to the following survey questions: 1) “Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst hospital possible and 10 is the best hospital possible, what number would you use to rate this hospital during your stay (overall patient satisfaction)?” and 2) “Would you recommend this hospital to your friends and family (willingness to recommend a hospital)? (4-point scale of “Definitely Yes” to “Definitely No”). Because the responses are not normally distributed, and the response options are truncated, we dichotomized each of these questions following previously published approaches8 and CMS methodology3 (e.g. “always” vs. all other responses or “9 or 10 rating” vs. all others). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Among 17,691 patients who reported that they needed pain medications during hospitalization in their HCAHPS survey, 43.7% (n=7,735) received opioids. Among the matched sample (n=8,848), 55% were female, 90% were white, 9% were black, 74% were emergency admissions, 29% had a circulatory diagnosis, 92% were discharged home, and the average pain score ranged from 0.2 to 7.1 during the hospital stay. Compared to matched patients hospitalized but did not receiving opioids, those who received opioids did not significantly differ in their rating of pain help (75% of patients without opioids rated that they always received help for their pain versus 75% of patients with opioids; p=.78), pain control (55% of patients without opioids reported that their pain was well controlled versus 54% on opioids; p=.93), willingness to recommend the hospital (69% of patients without opioids reported that they would definitely recommend a hospital versus 71% with opioids; p=.16) and overall rating of their care (47% of patients without opioids rated their hospitalization as 10 versus 46% on opioids; p=.22). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: We found no evidence that receipt of opioids is associated with patient satisfaction, including at doses. To our knowledge, this is the first study that used propensity score matching to examine the association between inpatient opioid prescribing practices and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, our sample is unique in the inclusion of patients hospitalized for non-surgical indicators over a five year period in the multi-hospital healthcare system in a Midwestern state. Our findings add to the existing literature which has shown contradictory associations between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction.16-22 Specifically, few studies that looked at surgical inpatients showed a lack of association between patient satisfaction16,18 and opioid prescribing, whereas others showed that receipt of opioids was associated with lower patient satisfaction.17-20 Our findings may imply that satisfaction with pain care may be achieved without administering opioids to non-surgical inpatients. Alternatively, satisfaction with pain care may not be influenced by opioid prescribing for non-surgical inpatients. Future research should further examine the association between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical inpatients on a national scale to get a better understanding of the relationship between certain pain care practices and patient satisfaction.