首页> 外文期刊>In Practice >Comments on the dilemma in the February issue: 'Changing established protocols
【24h】

Comments on the dilemma in the February issue: 'Changing established protocols

机译:对2月发行的难题的评论:“更改已建立的协议

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the dilemma discussed in the February issue of In Practice, a client had questioned your practice's vaccination protocol for their pet dog and cat. You had attended a CPD event recently in which it was suggested that reduced vaccinations and antibody monitoring might be the most appropriate regime, but this was not common in the local area (IP, February 2016, vol 38, pp 94-95). Hanne Stabursvik noted that changing vaccination protocols was a big move, and suggested that this should not be done in an ad-hoc manner. Clients must be considered, and there were some that would not understand why vaccination was being reduced. Strong leadership was needed from professional bodies to support changes such as these, and educational material should be made available. She suggested that, until a profession-wide change to vaccination protocols had been approved, it might be better to hold off making changes. If clinicians were particularly keen on this change, they could lobby the governing bodies, and even the vaccine manufacturers, to help drive the move.
机译:在2月的《实践》杂志中讨论的两难境地中,一位客户质疑您的诊所为其宠物猫和狗提供的疫苗接种方案。您最近参加了CPD活动,其中建议减少疫苗接种和抗体监测可能是最合适的方案,但这在本地并不常见(IP,2016年2月,第38卷,第94-95页)。 Hanne Stabursvik指出,更改疫苗接种方案是一项重大举措,并建议不要以临时方式进行。必须考虑客户,有些人不理解为什么减少了疫苗接种。需要专业机构的强有力领导来支持诸如此类的变革,并应提供教育材料。她建议,在批准针对疫苗接种方案的全行业变更之前,最好不要进行变更。如果临床医生特别热衷于这种变化,他们可以游说理事机构,甚至疫苗生产商,以帮助推动这一转变。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号