PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 13921043

Combined record and data processing system in a glaucoma clinic program.

R M THORNER·H PACKER
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesGlaucomaHumansOffice AutomationPunched-Card SystemsGLAUCOMAPUNCHED-CARD SYSTEMSJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R M THORNER, H PACKER. 1961. Combined record and data processing system in a glaucoma clinic program.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13921043/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Losing its exemption. Mass. appeals court rules that not-for-profit, hospital-owned clinic is liable for property taxes. Hospitals wonder who's next.

Not-for-profit hospital-owned physician groups may have to pay property taxes, according to a ruling from the Massachusetts Appeals Court. With federal and state officials showing interest in the tax-exempt status of not-for-profit hospitals, the case involving Sturdy Memorial Hospital could have national implications. "This is an issue coming out from under the covers," says healthcare lawyer David Hilgers, left.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗
PubMed2004

A postal survey of hydrosalpinx management prior to IVF in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, numerous studies have demonstrated concern about the presence of hydrosalpinx and its management in patients undergoing IVF. We evaluated the current management of hydrosalpinx prior to IVF treatment in the UK. METHODS: A total of 117 postal survey, anonymous, sealed questionnaires were sent to all IVF centres in the UK, to determine the policy for the management of hydrosalpinx in infertile women prior to IVF treatment. RESULTS: There were 88 (75%) responders, of which 80 (91%) indicated that they discussed the effect of hydrosalpinx on IVF outcome. Ten (12%) units did not recommend treatment of hydrosalpinx prior to IVF treatment, while 30 (36%), 27 (33%) and 16 (19%) recommended treatment weakly, strongly and very strongly respectively. The treatment options offered by clinicians were laparoscopic salpingectomy (75%), open salpingectomy (45%), salpingostomy (40%), proximal tubal occlusion (34%), transvaginal songraphic (TVS) aspiration during oocyte collection (23%) and TVS aspiration before oocyte collection (10%). The frequency of use varied from one option of treatment to another. Only 28% of the responders had a protocol or guidelines for the management of hydrosalpinx. CONCLUSIONS: More attention should be given to patients with hydrosalpinx prior to IVF treatment and patients should be counselled about the negative effect of hydrosalpinx on IVF outcome. There is a wide variation in the management of hydrosalpinx prior to IVF treatment in the UK and many treatment options may be questionable, as they are not yet based on evidence.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗