Sample Solution
When disseminating evidence-based practice (EBP) within my organization, community, or industry I would be most inclined to use both online platforms as well as in-person educational presentations. Both of these methods are effective for communicating EBP findings and results with an audience beyond one’s immediate work environment.
Using online platforms such as social media can be a great way to share EBP findings with a wide range of people that may not have previously been exposed to the content in question. When sharing material on social media it is important to utilize visuals and concise language that resonates with readers so they can quickly understand what is being presented without becoming overwhelmed by too much text. Additionally, when posting information via social media it should also include full citations and sources so readers can locate the original research article if desired (Fleisher et al., 2018). This helps maintain accuracy while also allowing others to further investigate topics related to EBP.
In addition to using digital channels for disseminating EBP knowledge, providing educational presentations in person at conferences or local events is another effective approach for spreading awareness about evidence-based practices among different groups of individuals (Langley & Moen, 2014). These types of events provide an opportunity for experts in specific fields like healthcare or research to interact directly with their target audiences which allows them more time and freedom when discussing complex topics associated with EBT then what might typically be reserved for brief posts shared on social media. Furthermore, presenting material face-to-face often gives speakers the chance to answer questions from attendees which could prove valuable if certain areas require clarification or additional explanation.
Overall, engaging in both virtual and physical avenues when disseminating knowledge related to evidence-based practice will help maximize reach while bringing exposure on a larger scale than solely relying on either method alone.
he pneumonic embolism preclude measures (PERC) is a device that is utilized in patients who are clinically viewed as okay to preclude PE and forestall superfluous imaging in patients who are generally safe. The clinician will apply every one of these rules to the patient. In the event that they meet any of the rules they are viewed as PERC negative and should proceed with additional turn out up for PE. In the event that patients are negative for the PERC, it diminishes the likelihood that the patient is encountering a PE to under 2% (6).
In the event that we apply the PERC to HM, he fits none of the measures so PE can securely be precluded in him with under a 2% likelihood. If we somehow managed to get a quantitative D-dimer on this patient it might return raised. Since he encountered the injury in addition to has had so many methods, this might have raised the worth. CTPA is superfluous because of the way that there is minimal possibility that he is encountering a PE. If he somehow managed to foster side effects, a CTPA might be fundamental.
Treatment:
Anticoagulation treatment in patients with intense PE is need for two reasons: to restrict the reach out of the harm brought about by the PE as well as forestall any repetitive PEs. The standard beginning treatment for a PE is low sub-atomic weight heparin (LMWH) (A). Unfractionated heparin is a choice that will be utilized in patients who have a creatinine freedom < 20-30 mL/min with extreme renal disability (A). Fondaparinux is likewise one more choice that can be utilized instead of LMWH in patients who have a past filled with heparin prompted thrombocytopenia (A). The advantages of LMWH and fondaparinux over unfractionated heparin incorporate a more extended half, better bioavailability and a more unsurprising anticoagulation reaction with sub-cutaneous infusion (11). All patients who have an intense PE from all causes should be treated with anticoagulated treatment for somewhere around 90 days. Those experiencing an intense PE coming about because of harm, antiphospholipid disorder, or a repetitive PE ought to consequently get a half year of anticoagulant treatment. Customarily, this is finished utilizing a vitamin K bad guy, like warfarin, for broadened treatment with the extra utilization of a parenterally controlled direct-beginning anticoagulated drug until the global standardized proportion arrives at a scope of 2-3 of every two successive days. The significant benefit to these medications are that they give a protected and solid method for giving anticoagulated treatment while keeping a generally safe of drain (1-2% in 90 days) (A). The drawback is that labs should be checked near guarantee that the patient is getting appropriate treatment. Another disadvantage is that there are a wide assortment of food connections that could both increment and lessening the viability of the medication in the body which at any point can either prompt hemorrhagic occasions or thromboembolic occasions. As of late, a few extra medications have been proposed as long haul treatment choices for anticoagulation for patients who encountered an intense PE. They are alluded to as the new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and they incorporate rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban. They have been displayed to have a similar viability at forestalling intermittent PEs with the additional advantage of having a more limited half-life, diminished frequency of draining inconveniences, and not checking blood levels which is a significant personal satisfaction factor. The principal worry with these new specialists is the absence of counteractants that could counterbalance their activities on account of a hemorrhagic occasion. Clinically this isn’t as large of an issue in view of the more limited half-life as well as the way that there is a lower occurrence of hemorrhagic occasions in the patients that take the NOACs. The more up to date specialists ought not be suggested in patients with disease related PEs (A). When patients complete the 3-month course of anticoagulation treatment, it should be resolved whether treatment will be gone on further. The main issue with expanded long haul anticoagulant treatment is the gamble of draining difficulties that accompanies it. In this way, the dangers of proceeding with the anticoagulant specialist should be weighed with the advantages of forestalling a repetitive PE. In patients who have a transient inciting variable like a medical procedure, delayed stability, or pregnancy, a repeat chance of 2.5% in a year is adequate to stop anticoagulant treatment. One of the manners in which that this chance is being surveyed is by utilizing the Vienna expectation model which considers factors like sex, area of the VTE, and D-dimer tests to create a gamble for repeat. Customarily vitamin K bad guys (VKA) have been utilized for this drawn out treatment,
