Department of Phoniatrics, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki University, Faculty of Medicine, PO Box 220, FI-00029 Helsinki, Finland. marja-leena.haapanen@hus.fi
Source
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Dec;76(12):1844-8
The aim of the present study was to examine whether infants would accept an oral motor pacifier (OMP).
Sixteen infants were examined for their immediate acceptance of an OMP. The pacifier was regarded as accepted, if the child took it in the mouth and kept it there actively, i.e. sucked it in one way or other. Their parents were informed verbally and in writing literally about how to offer the OMP to the child and how to use it. The OMP was presented to the child and the child permitted to insert it into her/his mouth by her/himself or if the child failed to do so, the OMP was gently put to the child's mouth. The subjects' reactions were structurally evaluated in terms of 11 statements. The parents of the children received a structured questionnaire with a space for optional free comments and personal opinions.
The median age (6 females, 10 males) was 18 months (mean 19.2 months, s.d. 10.6 and range 2-38 months). The statement scores showed no significant differentiation based on the age of the subject. The parents' reports indicated that 14 (87.5%) of the 18 subjects accepted the OMP, 13 (81.3%) enjoyed watching the pacifier as it was shown to them, and 11 (68.8%) explored it with their fingers while holding it in their hands.
The vast majority of the children accepted the new OMP either at the first trial or after a few trials.
Medical device problems as detected by the Health Protection Branch (HPB) of Health and Welfare Canada were studied in order to examine the frequency and safety priority of problems in the subgroup of anaesthesia devices. Data pertaining to the time period from April 1, 1987 to November 30, 1992 were gathered from the Medical Devices Notification Database and the DAFFY Reporting System. The Medical Devices Notification Database contains all notifications for newly marketed medical devices in Canada and the DAFFY Reporting System keeps record of all submitted problem reports and manufacturer recalls along with their designated safety priority status. When an important safety hazard is associated with a medical device as determined from information submitted to HPB, an Alert-Medical Devices may be issued to inform hospitals and health care professionals of the problem. During the studied time period, the percentages of problem reports and recalls as well as Alerts were compared with the percentage of newly marketed anaesthesia devices. It was found that although only 2.3% of the newly marketed medical devices were classified as anaesthesia devices, 8.6% of all problem reports/recalls and 37.5% of all Alerts originated from the field of anaesthesia devices. Comparison of the percentages of problem reports/recalls (8.6%) and Alerts (37.5%) with the percentage of marketed devices for anaesthesia (2.3%) showed differences (P
Notes
Comment In: Can J Anaesth. 1993 Oct;40(10):911-48222028
In the province of Ontario, analyzing of pacemaker leads is a delegated controlled act. This article describes the certification/recertification process for analyzing of pacemaker leads at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.
In 1978, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), developed a generic anesthesia equipment preuse checklist. The checklist was first released by the FDA in August 1986 and endorsed by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists on October 18, 1986. The FDA checklist was revised in 1992 to improve the abilities of anesthesia providers to detect machine faults. In the present study, the investigators attempted to determine the effectiveness of the revised FDA checklist in detection of anesthesia machine faults as compared to providers' usual methods. Whereas no published study of preanesthesia safety inspection had been performed since the revision of the FDA checklist, the authors compared the detection abilities of anesthesia providers before and after inclusion of the revised FDA checklist. Twenty-two anesthesia providers were tested to compare the number of prearranged anesthesia machine faults that could be detected with (1) their usual checkout methods, and (2) with the revised FDA checklist. Data describing the subjects' fault detection abilities were analyzed using the t test for paired observation (P value
The purpose of this study was to determine the circumstances of electrical burn injuries caused by the use of multimeters among electricians and electrical apprentices in Ontario and to develop a burn prevention program to reduce them. A survey to investigate electrical injuries caused by multimeters was mailed in June 2004 to 5000 Ontario electricians and electrical apprentices. A high voltage laboratory tested the effectiveness of fused leads to reduce multimeters malfunction. The results of the survey and laboratory tests helped to implement a burn prevention program. Then, a mail fused leads multimeter exchange program was implemented, and proposals to improve the multimeters standard were made to the Canadian Standards Association. Nine hundred (18%) workers responded the survey. There were 801 (89%) electricians, 81 (9%) electrical apprentices, and 27 (3%) with other qualifications. Ninety-nine (11%) had a multimeter fail during use, and half of them suffered critical burns. Causes of the injury were operator error (59%), wrong category rating (21%), defective equipment (18%), and others (2%). More than 2000 electrical contractors acquired the new fused leads multimeters. There were no critical injuries caused by multimeters in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 (January to August) in Ontario. Understanding the cause of electrical burn injuries by multimeters and engaging members of the integrated electrical safety system in a multifaceted prevention program were effective in reducing electrical burn injuries. Fused leads multimeters proved to be effective in preventing most common user errors and electrical burn injuries caused by multimeters.
Whole-body vibration measurements were recorded for various types of heavy equipment used within the construction industry. The purpose of these measurements was to provide more information about the potential levels of whole-body vibration experienced by equipment operators in the construction industry, as well as to identify types of equipment warranting further research. In total, 67 pieces of equipment were tested from 14 different equipment types. Testing took place at various construction sites including corporate, public, and residential work projects. Measurements were made (following the 1997 International Standards Organization's 2631-1 whole-body vibration standards) for 20-minute testing periods using a Larson Davis HVM100 vibration monitor and a triaxial accelerometer. The mobile equipment tested was associated with greater levels of whole-body vibration than the stationary equipment. When whole-body vibration levels were compared to the International Standards Organization's 2631-1 standards, wheel loaders, off-road dump trucks, scrapers, skid steer vehicles, backhoes, bulldozers, crawler loaders, and concrete trowel vehicles exceeded the recommendations based on measured vibration dose values. Further research incorporating larger sample sizes and controlled testing conditions is required to better understand the levels of exposure experienced by operators as well as the amount to which seating, terrain, mobility, and vehicle structure might affect whole-body vibration.
