No abstract available

This pilot study investigated a new simplified OSA screening tool that could be used in primary care/GP settings - the "GPSS" tool - "General Practice Sleep Scale" and compared against common existing OSA screening tools.A convenience sample of patients attending the respiratory and sleep clinic in the Northern Territory of Australia were included if they completed the GPSS prior to undergoing a diagnostic polysomnography. The GPSS contained 9 questions to provide information on: sex, age, body mass index, neck circumference, snoring, witnessed apnoeas, morning tiredness, daytime sleepiness and presence of hypertension/diabetes/heart disease/depression. Presence of OSA was defined as an apnoea-hypopnoea index of ≥15/hour. The GPSS scoring was developed via log odds of regression predictions for each GPSS question upon OSA.159 patients (65 % male, median age 45 years) were enrolled. A minimum score of 1 was assigned to GPSS questions, up to 5 for the strongest predictor (neck circumference). The median total GPSS score was 13 (IQR 9, 16) (maximum 22) and correlated strongly with OSA (AUC 0.812 (95 % CI 0.744, 0.881)). Categorised into low (0-7), moderate (8-13) or high risk (>13), a moderate or severe score had sensitivity 100, specificity 34.9 %. The GPSS significantly outperformed the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Berlin questionnaire and OSA-50, and was comparable but slightly improved against the STOP-Bang.The proposed GPSS tool could be of use in general practice settings. Further prospective research is warranted to test the applicability and adaptability of the GPSS tool in wider population settings.

Suspected preterm labour (PTL) and prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) are common indications for aeromedical retrieval in the Top End, Northern Territory, Australia, where many women reside remotely and preterm birth (< 37 completed weeks of gestation) is common. The primary objective of this study was to determine rate of delivery during the index admission following aeromedical transfers from remote clinics to Royal Darwin Hospital for suspected PTL/PPROM.A retrospective cohort study of aeromedical transfers for suspected PTL/PPROM from 1 January 2020 to 31 July 2022 was undertaken. Transfers were identified through CareFlight, the regional air ambulance service, and complemented with data from hospital records. Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were compared by delivery status during the index (post-retrieval) admission using parametric and non-parametric tests and multivariable linear regression analysis.238 women with singleton pregnancies were retrieved for suspected PPROM (n = 77, 32.4%) or PTL (n = 161, 67.6%), together accounting for 49.2% of all obstetric transfers (n = 483). Of 77 patients transferred for suspected PPROM, 47 (61.0%) had ruptured membranes confirmed on arrival, and 45 (95.7%) of them delivered during the index admission. None of the 30 women transferred for suspected PPROM with intact membranes on arrival delivered during the index admission. Of 161 patients transferred for suspected PTL, 13 (8.1%) had ruptured membranes confirmed on arrival, and 12 (92.3%) of them delivered during the index admission. Amongst women transferred for suspected PTL with intact membranes confirmed on arrival, 14.9% (22/149) delivered during the index admission. Prior to arrival, 120 women (50.4%) had a documented speculum examination, and 15 (6.3%) and 9 (3.8%) had cervicovaginal swab tests to assess their risks of a PPROM and PTL, respectively. Half of women who did not deliver during the index admission had received antenatal corticosteroids (n = 76).Many aeromedical retrievals for suspected PTL/PPROM did not result in delivery during the index admission. Women retrieved for suspected PPROM with intact membranes on arrival were less likely to deliver. Upskilling remote clinic staff and better point-of-care testing may reduce retrievals and unnecessary interventions. Prospective cohort studies designed to enable accurate prediction of which cases can be safely not retrieved are required.Not applicable.

Government mandated quarantine outside the home was implemented to mitigate COVID-19 in some countries. Individual studies report that this can result in psychological distress. Investigating levels of distress and associated risk factors across different settings would inform public health models of care during future pandemics. However, no previous systematic reviews have been conducted on the topic. Therefore, we systematically reviewed international research on the prevalence and risk factors of psychological distress within supervised quarantine facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.A systematic review of the literature was conducted using Medline, Psychological and Behavioural Sciences, Psych Info, Cochrane databases and Google Scholar from January 2020 until June 2023. Relevant quantitative studies published in English were included.13 studies (pooled participants = 4366) were included in this review. The prevalence of psychological distress varied widely across the included studies (depression 4%-63%; anxiety 4%-100%; stress 1%-68%). Associated risk factors identified were also heterogeneous between studies and facilities.In future pandemics, the benefits of infection mitigation need to be weighed against the risk of psychological distress. Models of care utilising specifically designed facilities, with greater freedoms, increased comfort and ease of access to mental health services may limit psychological distress.

PS5 Standard for Pharmacy Based Immunisation Programs

Application for registering a radiation apparatus