The surgical manpower survey: workload changes among general surgeons.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To comparise three methods for assessing the productivity of radiological services: a) simple count of radiological examinations, b) method proposed by SNR-SAGO-SIRM, c) method used by Regione Emilia Romagna (RER) to evalutate the characteristics of these methods and to find a common method of estimate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: On the radiological examinations performed at our unit over a period of 12 months were recorded. The different types of examinations were clustered into five homogenous groups (general radiology, ultrasound, barium examinations, CT, MRI). The data were assessed by a) number of examinations/hour per radiologist, b) score/hour according to the SNR-SAGO-SIRM method and c) score/hour according to the RER method, and then compared for the percentage of the single aggregates. RESULTS: a) The total number of examinations was 26,776 with 40% being accounted for by general radiology; mean numbers of examinations our ranged from 2.43 (August) to 4.20 (March). b) The total score according to the SNR-SAGO-SIRM method was 67,054. The radiologist weight per hour ranged from 6.37 (August) to 9.67 (May). Ultrasound was the most relevant examination in the unit accounting for 43% of total weight. c) The total score according to the RER method was 1,850,780. The radiologist weight per hour ranged from 159 (August) to 316 (April). CT was the most relevant examination (51% of total weight). CONCLUSION: According to the simple count of examinations, general radiology and ultrasound were the most relevant examinations together accounting for 75% of examinations, i.e. 40% and 35% respectively, whereas by SNR-SAGO-SIRM standards the two techniques represent 19% and 45% respectively. The simple count method therefore fails to give adequate weight to technologically advanced imaging technique. The SNR-SAGO-SIRM method adequately takes into account the combination of patient-number and patient weight. The RER method gives excessive weight costly technology as it considers the total weight of the examination and not only the radiologist's activity.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Breathe Right (BR) external nasal dilator have become increasingly popular over the past few years, however, the physiological basis for using BR remains unclear. We have examined whether alteration in nasal ventilation would influence the metabolic cost of submaximal running. METHODS: Metabolic cost was estimated in 10 male endurance triathletes by measuring heart rate (HR) and exercise perception by measuring the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during submaximal field running. The protocol consisted of 5 min of running at 80% of their maximal aerobic velocity (MAV(f), previously determined under field conditions) for three randomised experimental conditions, separated by a 10 min rest. The conditions were normal nasal ventilation (N), no nasal ventilation (using a nose clip) (NC) and with a BR. RESULTS: Running with the BR or with NC did not significantly influence HR (N: 173+/-7, BR: 173+/-8, NC: 172+/-7 beat x min(-1); F=0.01, p=0.99) or RPE (N: 12.1+/-1.7, BR: 11.8+/-1.9, NC: 13.2+/-0.8; F=1.88, p=0.18). We conclude that alteration in nasal ventilation produced by using BR or NC do not influence HR or RPE in a group of triathletes running 5 min at 80% of MAV(f). CONCLUSIONS: The present study tended to demonstrate that both nasal ventilation would not influence the total metabolic cost, and that the BR device is not advantageous during high intensity exercise.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.