Danger of portable beds

Danger of portable beds.


Caution is required when using carry-on bed rails because they put kin at risk for falling or becoming trapped, the US Food and Drug Administration warns Dec 27, 2013. Portable bed rails rivet to a normal, adult-sized bed, often by sliding a play of the rail under the mattress or by using the floor for support additional info. People can get trapped in or around the rail, including between the bed-rail bars, between the baluster and the mattress, or between the rail and the headboard, said Joan Todd, a superior nurse-consultant at the FDA.



And "Consumers need to realize that even when bed rails are well designed and used correctly, they can gift a hazard to certain individuals - particularly to people with physical limitations or who have an altered balmy status, such as dementia or confusion," Todd said in an FDA news release eazol. Between January 2003 and September 2012, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission received reports of 155 deaths and five injuries affiliate to transportable bed rails designed for mature use, according to the news release.



More than 90 percent of the deaths were caused by entrapment. Of the 155 deaths, 129 occurred in masses aged 60 or older and 94 occurred at home. About half of the victims had a medical brainwash such as heart disease, Alzheimer's infection or dementia. The FDA has a new website on bed-rail safety that offers information about the quiescent hazards and advice for safe use.



Read more

tag : rails portable person mattress trapped deaths occurred position created

Baby illusion

Baby illusion.


Many mothers think about their youngest child is smaller than he or she in actuality is, according to new research. The finding may help explain why many of these children are referred to as the "baby of the family," well into adulthood. It also offers a percipience why a first child suddenly seems much larger when a young sibling is born full report. Until the arrival of the new child, parents experience what is called a "baby illusion," said the authors of the study, which was published Dec 16, 2013 in the paper Current Biology.



Read more

tag : child mothers parents family children illusion first youngest really

A New Approach To The Regularity Of Mammography

A New Approach To The Regularity Of Mammography.


A reborn circulate challenges the 2009 recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force that women between 40 and 49 who are not at serious risk of breast cancer can probably wait to get a mammogram until 50, and even then only require the exam every two years. A well-known Harvard Medical School radiologist, calligraphy in the July issue of Radiology, says telling women to wait until 50 is supine out wrong hydroxycut.herbalous.com. The task force recommendations, he says, are based on faulty expertise and should be revised or withdrawn.



So "We know from the scientific studies that screening saves a lot of lives, and it saves lives all women in their 40s," said Dr Daniel B Kopans, a professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and superior radiologist in the breast imaging division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learn more. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said its recommendation, which sparked a firestorm of controversy, was based in knowledge and would salvage many women each year from inessential worry and treatment.



But the guidelines left most women confused. The American Cancer Society continued to vouch for annual mammograms for women in their 40s, and young breast cancer survivors shared vigorous stories about how screening saved their lives. One main poser with the guidelines is that the USPSTF relied on incorrect methods of analyzing data from breast cancer studies.



The hazard of breast cancer starts rising gradually during the 40s, 50s and gets higher still during the 60s. But the figures used by the USPSTF lumped women between 40 and 49 into one group, and women between 50 and 59 in another group, and adamant those in the younger group were much less likely to develop chest cancer than those in the older group.



That may be true except that assigning age 50 as the "right" discretion for mammography is arbitrary. "A woman who is 49 is similar biologically to a woman who is 51. Breast cancer doesn't keep track of your age. There is nothing that changes abruptly at age 50".



Other problems with the USPSTF guidelines comprise the following. The guidelines cite research that shows mammograms are to blame for a 15 percent reduction in mortality. That's an underestimate. Other studies show screening women in their 40s can knock down deaths by as much as 44 percent. Sparing women from unnecessary irritation over false positives is a poor reason for not screening, since dying of breast cancer is a far worse fate. "They made the biased decision that women in their 40s couldn't tolerate the anxiety of being called back because of a arguable screening study, even though when you ask women who've been through it, most are pleased there was nothing wrong, and studies show they will come back for their next screening even more religiously. The piece of work force took the decision away from women. It's incredibly paternalistic". The effort force recommendation to screen only high-risk women in their 40s will avoid the 75 percent of breast cancers that occur among women who would not be considered high risk, that is, they don't have a doctrinaire family history of the disease and they don't have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes known to intensify cancer risk.



Read more

tag : women cancer breast screening mammography uspstf force guidelines lives

Useless The Second Phase Of The Definition Of Brain Death

Useless The Second Phase Of The Definition Of Brain Death.


Making families stand by for a bat exam to confirm a brain death diagnosis is not only supererogatory but may make it less likely that the family will agree to donate their loved one's organs, a budding study finds. Researchers reviewed records from the New York Organ Donor Network database of 1,229 adults and 82 children who had been declared intellectual dead as an example. All of the public had died in New York hospitals over a 19-month period between June 2007 and December 2009.



Patients had to delay an average of nearly 20 hours between the first and second exam, even though the New York State Health Department recommends a six-hour wait, according to the study. Not only did the later exam join nothing to the diagnosis - not one patient was found to have regained brain function between the first and the second exam - long-winded waiting times appeared to make families more reluctant to give consent for organ donation view homepage. About 23 percent of families refused to confer their loved ones organs, a covey that rose to 36 percent when wait times stretched to more than 40 hours, the investigators found.



The chat was also true: Consent for organ donation decreased from 57 percent to 45 percent as linger times were dragged out. Though the research did not look at the causes of the refusal, for families, waiting around for a in the second place exam means another emotionally exhausting, stressful and uncertain day waiting in an comprehensive care unit to find out if it's time to remove their loved one from life support, said examination author Dr Dana Lustbader, chief of palliative care at The North Shore LIJ Health System in Manhasset, NY.



At the same time, the patient's already sensitive train can further decrease the odds of organ donation occurring as waiting times go up. Organ viability decreases the longer a woman is brain dead.



Read more

tag : waiting brain second organ study percent families times period

How to manage your boss

How to manage your boss.


One particular of dealing with bawdy bosses may be to turn their hostility back on them, a new study suggests. Hundreds of US workers were asked if their supervisors were bellicose - doing things such as yelling, ridiculing and intimidating staff - and how the employees responded to such treatment. Workers who had adverse bosses but didn't retaliate had higher levels of abstract stress, were less satisfied with their jobs, and less committed to their employer than those who returned their supervisor's hostility, the bookwork found helpful hints. But the researchers also found that workers who turned the hostility back on their bosses were less likely to consider themselves victims.



The workers in the sanctum returned hostility by ignoring the boss, acting like they didn't grasp what the boss was talking about, or by doing a half-hearted job, according to the study that was published online recently in the dossier Personnel Psychology for more. "Before we did this study, I thought there would be no upside to employees who retaliated against their bosses, but that's not what we found," part author Bennett Tepper, a professor of management and human resources at Ohio State University, said in a university gossip release.



Read more

tag : workers bosses employees hostility hostile study abuse admiration university

Профиль

alejandrafalto

Author:alejandrafalto
Dr. Alejandra Falto

Новые записи
Новые комментарии
Новые трэкбэки
Архив по месяцам
Категории
Форма поиска
RSS ссылка
Ссылки
Формуляр приглашения в блог-друзья

Добавить автора в блог-друзья