Search

Purpose: Firefighters perform dangerous and physically demanding work, increasing their risk of musculoskeletal injuries that can lead to work absences. Return-to-work procedures can help firefighters return-to-work sooner and safely. The purpose of this study was to explore what firefighters understand about return-to-work procedures in their workplaces, and what firefighters believe the facilitators and barriers to return-to-work are., Methods: Thirty-eight Canadian career firefighters were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Qualitative descriptive methods were used to analyze the transcripts. Two researchers performed the inductive coding and thematic analysis., Results: Five themes were identified: 1. Variation in the return-to-work process knowledge among firefighters based on their experiences; 2. Accessible medical resources and treatments to support injury recovery; 3. Light duties must be meaningful and suitable; 4. Pressures to return-to-work too soon may lead to negative consequences; and 5. Heavy physical demands of firefighting may become a barrier for return-to-work. 'Factors affecting RTW depended on personal experiences and context' was the overarching theme identified, as many reported facilitators for return-to-work were also reported as barriers in different contexts. There was a variation in the experiences and understanding of return-to-work., Conclusion: There is a lack of knowledge of the return-to-work processes. Firefighters require access to clear return-to-work policies and procedures and treatments that are targeted to firefighting duties to support recovery from injuries and regain physical abilities after an injury. Firefighters must be able to perform all essential duties before returning to firefighting work, as returning to work too soon can lead to further injury., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: This study compared two previously validated sensitive and specific diabetes case definitions to explore the impact of different classification methods in Ontario ICES administrative data., Methods: This study included patients captured by the Ontario Diabetes Database with type 2 diabetes using either the sensitive cohort definition (≥ 2 physician visits for diabetes within 1 year or ≥ 1 drug claim for diabetes or ≥ 1 hospitalization with diabetes), or the specific cohort definition (≥ 3 physician visits for diabetes within 1 year), between October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015. Each cohort's demographic and clinical features were described using descriptive analysis., Results: Using sensitive and specific definitions, 1,093,812 and 783,228 patients with type 2 diabetes were identified, respectively. Overall, the demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between cohorts. Patients in the sensitive cohort had mean age of 64.1 years and were 52.4% male, compared to 64.8 years and 53.6% male in the specific cohort. In the sensitive and specific cohorts respectively, 64.4% and 55.7% of patients reported one-year mean HbA1c of < 7% (53 mmol/mol) and 25.3% and 31.5% reported levels between 7.0-8.5% (53-69 mmol/mol)., Conclusions: Although sample sizes were different between sensitive and specific cohorts, demographic and clinical characteristics were similar., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Determine factors that increase the risk of bleeding after liver biopsy., Methods: Retrospective review of radiology and clinical databases from Jan 2008 to Jun 2014 revealed 847 patients with liver biopsy. Of these, 154 (group I) had targeted biopsy of focal lesion and 142 (group 2) had random core biopsy for diffuse liver disease. The rest of the patients were excluded due to insufficient post-biopsy data. Data including pre-biopsy laboratory results, history of transfusion, and biopsy complications were recorded in the study cohort. After review of initial results, a "Risk Score" for bleeding was created using platelet count, INR, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and suspicion of malignancy. Zero point was given for normal laboratory results or absence of malignancy. One point was given for mildly abnormal laboratory values or presence of malignancy. Severe biochemical abnormalities, e.g., INR > 2.0, eGFR < 30 mL/min, or platelet count ≤ 50 × 10(9)/L were given two points each. The "Risk Score" was made of adding individual points., Results: Of 847 patients queried by retrospective database search, 296 had adequate records for the period of 2 weeks prior to biopsy to 4 weeks after biopsy. The remaining patients had liver biopsy as outpatients and probably did not have bleeding complications but no electronic records were found to confirm this. 25 (8.4%) of 296 patients had post-biopsy bleeding, with incidences of 11.7% and 4.9% in groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.04). On logistic regression analysis, the only significant predictor of bleeding was the "Risk Score" (p = 0.01, odds ratio 4.6). There was substantial overlap in INR, and platelet count in bleeders vs. non-bleeders. Pre-biopsy fresh frozen plasma or platelet concentrate infusions did not reduce the risk of bleeding., Conclusion: INR and platelet count are not an independent risk factors for post-biopsy bleeding. A "Risk Score" made up of individual risk factors was a better predictor of bleeding.