RESUMEN

Introdução: Entre os desafios para se alcançar o cuidado integral está o acesso às unidades básicas, que não ocorre com tanta facilidade como deveria, caracterizando-se como uma grande dificuldade para os gestores municipais. O Programa de Melhoria ao Acesso e Qualidade de Atenção Básica, teve como objetivo incentivar a ampliação do acesso e melhorar a qualidade da atenção básica, garantindo um padrão de qualidade comparável nacionalmente, regionalmente e localmente de maneira a permitir maior transparência e efetividade das ações governamentais relacionadas a atenção básica. Objetivo: Avaliar a qualidade da atenção básica dos municípios da 6ª região de saúde, na perspectiva do acesso aos serviços de saúde. Metodologia: Trata-se de uma pesquisa avaliativa, com abordagem quantitativa. Foram utilizados dados secundários extraídos dos relatórios analíticos disponibilizados publicamente. A coleta dos dados ocorreu no período de março a maio de 2020. As informações foram organizadas a partir da elaboração de um protocolo de pesquisa contendo a dimensão: acesso. Resultados: Em relação ao acolhimento à demanda espontânea, 34 equipes não realizavam classificação de risco e 44 não realizavam acolhimento durante todo o funcionamento. Na análise dos indicadores de consulta médicas, identificou-se que 18 equipes não apresentaram resultados para os cálculos e não realizavam consultas médicas essenciais. Os dados evidenciaram que 40 equipes não agendavam consultas durante todo o horário e nana organização da agenda, apenas 9 equipes atenderam aos critérios descritos nas dimensões analisadas. Conclusões: Foi possível identificar que existem muitas barreiras organizacionais em relação ao acesso, principalmente quanto a marcação de consultas e ao acolhimento à demanda espontânea (AU).

Introduction: Among the challenges in achieving comprehensive care is access to basic units, which does not occur as easily as it should, representing a major difficulty for municipal managers. The Program for Improving Access and Quality of Primary Care aimed to encourage the expansion of access and improve the quality of primary care, ensuring a comparable quality standard nationally, regionally, and locally to allow greater transparency and effectiveness of government actions related to primary care.Objective:Evaluate the quality of primary care in the municipalities of the 6th health region, from the perspective of access to health services.Methodology: This is an evaluative research, with a quantitative approach. Secondary data extracted from publicly available analytical reports were used. Data collection took place from March to May 2020. The information was organized based on the development of a research protocol containing the dimension: access. Results: About welcoming spontaneous demand, 34 teams did not carry out risk classification and 44 did not provide support throughout the operation. In the analysis of medical consultation indicators, it was identified that 18 teams did not present results for the calculations and did not carry out essential medical consultations. The data showed that 40 teams did not schedule appointments during all hours and when organizing the agenda, only 9 teams met the criteria described in the dimensions analyzed. Conclusions:It was possible to identify that there are many organizational barriers to access, mainly regarding scheduling appointments and accepting spontaneous demand (AU).

Introducción: Entre los desafíos para alcanzar el cuidado integral está el acceso a las unidades básicas, que no ocurre con tanta facilidad como debería, caracterizándose como una grandificultad para los gestores municipales. El Programa de Mejora al Acceso y Calidad de Atención Básica, tuvo como objetivo incentivar la ampliación del acceso y mejorar la calidad de la atención básica, garantizando un estándar de calidad comparable nacionalmente, regionalmente y local de manera a permitir mayor transparencia y efectividad de las acciones gubernamentales relacionadas con la atención básica.Objetivo: Evaluar la calidad de la atención primaria en los municipios de la 6ª región sanitaria desde la perspectiva del acceso a los servicios sanitarios.Metodología: Se trata de una investigación evaluativa, con enfoque cuantitativo. Se utilizaron datos secundarios extraídos de informes analíticos disponibles públicamente. La recolección de datos se realizó de marzo a mayo de 2020. La información se organizó a partir del desarrollo de un protocolo de investigación que contiene la dimensión: acceso.Resultados: En relación al acogimiento a la demanda espontánea, 34 equipos no realizaban clasificación de riesgo y 44 no realizaban acogida durante todo el funcionamiento. En el análisis de los indicadores de consulta médicas, se identificó que 18 equipos no presentaron resultados para los cálculos y no realizaban consultas médicas esenciales. Los datos evidenciaron que 40 equipos no programaban consultas durante todo el horario y en la organización de la agenda, solo 9 equipos atendieron a los criterios descritos en las dimensiones analizadas. Conclusiones: Fue posible identificar que existen muchas barrerasorganizacionales en relación al acceso, principalmente en cuanto a la marcación de consultas y a la acogida a la demanda espontánea (AU).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Today, primary care professionals' (PCPs) perspectives on hospital quality are unknown when evaluating hospital quality priorities. The aims of the present study were to identify key healthcare quality attributes from PCPs' perspective, to validate an instrument that measures PCPs' experiences of healthcare quality multidimensionally and to define hospital quality priorities based on PCPs' experiences. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Focus groups with PCPs were conducted to identify quality attributes through a qualitative in-depth analysis. A multicentre study of 18 hospitals was used to quantitatively assess construct, discriminant and criterion validity of the FlaQuM-Quickscan, an instrument that measures 'Healthcare quality for patients and kin' (part 1) and 'Healthcare quality for professionals' (part 2). To set quality priorities, scores on quality domains were analyzed descriptively and between-hospital variation was examined by evaluating differences in hospitals' mean scores on the quality domains using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Identified key attributes largely corresponded with Lachman's multidimensional quality model. Including 'Communication' as a new quality domain was recommended. The FlaQuM-Quickscan was completed by 550 PCPs. Confirmatory factor analyses showed reasonable to good fit, except for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) in part 2. The 'Equity' domain scored the highest in parts 1 and 2. Domains 'Kin-centred care' and 'Accessibility and timeliness' scored the lowest in part 1 and 'Resilience' and 'Partnership and co-production' in part 2. Significant variation in hospitals' mean scores was observed for eleven domains in part 1 and sixteen domains in part 2. CONCLUSIONS: The results gained a better understanding of PCPs' perspective on quality. The FlaQuM-Quickscan is a valid instrument to measure PCPs' experiences of hospital quality. Identified priorities indicate that hospital management should focus on multifaceted quality strategies, including technical domains, person-and kin-centredness, core values and catalysts.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RESUMO: Objetivo: identificar os instrumentos utilizados para a avaliação do paciente hospitalizado em cuidados paliativos. Método: revisão integrativa da literatura, realizada em janeiro de 2024, nas plataformas de dados on-line: National Library of Medicine e Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe de Informação em Ciências da Saúde e a biblioteca virtual Scientific Electronic Library Online. Foram analisados 12 artigos científicos. Resultados: foram identificados 16 instrumentos, sete genéricos, quatro específicos as para pessoas em cuidados paliativos, quatro específicos para os pacientes oncológicos e um para o diagnóstico de COVID-19. O Palliative Perfomance Scale e Edmonton Symptom Assessment foram os instrumentos mais utilizados nos estudos e os aspectos mais relevantes a serem avaliados nos pacientes em cuidados paliativos, foram: capacidade funcional, sintomas físicos e psicológicos e idade avançada. Conclusão: os instrumentos se mostraram úteis para direcionar os profissionais de saúde, na avaliação do paciente, no planejamento do cuidado e na tomada de decisões.

ABSTRACT Objective: to identify the instruments used to assess patients hospitalized in palliative care. Method: integrative literature review carried out in January 2024 on the online data platforms: National Library of Medicine and Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) and the virtual library Scientific Electronic Library Online. Twelve scientific articles were analyzed. Results: Sixteen instruments were identified, seven of them generic, four specific for people in palliative care, four specific for oncology patients and one for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The Palliative Performance Scale and Edmonton Symptom Assessment were the most used instruments in the studies and the most relevant aspects to be evaluated in patients receiving palliative care were functional capacity, physical and psychological symptoms and old age. Conclusion: The instruments were useful as they guided health professionals, assessed patients, and planned care and decision-making.

RESUMEN: Objetivo: identificar los instrumentos utilizados para evaluar a los pacientes hospitalizados en cuidados paliativos. Método: revisión bibliográfica integradora, realizada en enero de 2024 en plataformas de datos en línea: National Library of Medicine, Literatura Latino-Americana y del Caribe de información en Ciencias de la Salud y Scientific Electronic Library Online. Se analizaron doce artículos científicos. Resultados: Se identificaron 16 instrumentos, siete genéricos, cuatro específicos para personas en cuidados paliativos, cuatro específicos para pacientes con cáncer y uno para el diagnóstico de covid-19. La Palliative Perfomance Scale y Edmonton Symptom Assessment fueron los instrumentos más utilizados en los estudios y los aspectos más relevantes a evaluar en los pacientes de cuidados paliativos fueron: la capacidad funcional, los síntomas físicos y psicológicos y la edad avanzada. Conclusión: Los instrumentos resultaron útiles para orientar a los profesionales sanitarios en la evaluación de los pacientes, la planificación de los cuidados y la toma de decisiones.

RESUMEN

The perioperative setting is one of the hospital areas with the highest prevalence of medication errors. Despite the wide experience of hospital pharmacists in developing medication safety programs and improvement initiatives, the perioperative setting has remained one of the areas in which there is less experience. Clinical pharmacist should be integrated into the multidisciplinary care team so that they can be involved in the different surgical phases of care, which include from the preoperative assessment to inpatient stay, and finally discharge from hospital. Their work will consist of coordinating and implementing strategies that have been demonstrated to reduce medication errors during the perioperative process. The aim of this paper is to introduce a specialized pharmaceutical care program to achieve excellence in the pharmaceutical care of surgical patients. This program is especially aimed at promoting the figure of the clinical pharmacist in the perioperative setting to guarantee the highest quality and safety in pharmacotherapeutic care throughout all the surgical phases of care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The perioperative setting is one of the hospital areas with the highest prevalence of medication errors. Despite the wide experience of hospital pharmacists in developing medication safety programs and improvement initiatives, the surgical environment has remained one of the areas in which there is less experience. Clinical pharmacist should be integrated into the multidisciplinary care teams so that they can be involved in the different surgical phases of care, which include from the preoperative assessment to inpatient stay, and finally discharge from hospital. Their work will consist of coordinating and implementing strategies that have been demonstrated to reduce medication errors throughout the perioperative process. The aim of this paper is to introduce a specialized pharmaceutical care program to achieve excellence in the pharmaceutical care of surgical patients. This program is especially aimed at promoting the figure of the clinical pharmacist in the perioperative setting to guarantee the highest quality and safety in pharmacotherapeutic care throughout all the surgical phases of care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

El proceso quirúrgico es una de las áreas del hospital con más prevalencia de errores de medicación. A pesar de la amplia experiencia del farmacéutico en el desarrollo de prácticas seguras de utilización de los medicamentos, el bloque quirúrgico ha sido una de las áreas en las que menos experiencia existe.El farmacéutico especialista debe integrarse en el equipo multidisciplinar, de tal forma que pueda estar presente en todas las etapas de atención al enfermo (prehospitalización, precirugía, intracirugía, postcirugía y alta). Su función será coordinar y diseñar la puesta en marcha de diferentes estrategias que han demostrado reducir el riesgo de errores de medicación durante todo el proceso perioperatorio.El objetivo del presente trabajo es presentar un programa de atención farmacéutica especializada para alcanzar la excelencia en la atención farmacéutica del paciente quirúrgico. Este programa está dirigido especialmente a visibilizar la figura del farmacéutico en el entorno perioperatorio, para que pueda colaborar en garantizar una atención farmacoterapéutica de máxima calidad y seguridad en todas las etapas. (AU)

The perioperative setting is one of the hospital areas with the highest prevalence of medication errors. Despite the wide experience of hospital pharmacists in developing medication safety programs and improvement initiatives, the surgical environment has remained one of the areas in which there is less experience.Clinical pharmacist should be integrated into the multidisciplinary care teams so that they can be involved in the different surgical phases of care, which include from the preoperative assessment to inpatient stay, and finally discharge from hospital. Their work will consist of coordinating and implementing strategies that have been demonstrated to reduce medication errors throughout the perioperative process.The aim of this paper is to introduce a specialized pharmaceutical care program to achieve excellence in the pharmaceutical care of surgical patients. This program is especially aimed at promoting the figure of the clinical pharmacist in the perioperative setting to guarantee the highest quality and safety in pharmacotherapeutic care throughout all the surgical phases of care. (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of indicators that evaluate the health results of the non-cancer chronic pain (NCCP). The objective of this study was to agree on how to evaluate health outcomes in NCCP in Spain, as well as to propose lines of action to have an optimal evaluation framework not only for patients, but for healthcare professionals and managers as well. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a qualitative research study through directed group interviews which followed a script based on structured questions using the PICO methodology. RESULTS: More than the intensity of pain, the main points to be measured are pain-free time, improved rest/sleep, improved mood, recovery of daily activities and adherence to treatment, in addition to -in the scope of management- resource consumption. The therapeutic objective must be defined individually, based on the adjustment of expectations between the healthcare professional and the patients, taking into account their preferences and involving them in the therapeutic process. Patients and caregivers must be informed and trained with special emphasis on the psycho-emotional sphere of pain. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to evaluate the health outcomes in NCCP in Spain. Lines of action are proposed that might provide an adequate assessment framework for the patient, the healthcare professionals and the health managers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Los criterios de autorización de comercialización de medicamentosde la Agencia Europea del Medicamento se reflejan en losEuropean Public Assessment Reports. El objetivo es describir las expectativasy preferencias de nuestros pacientes externos oncohematológicoscon respecto a sus tratamientos orales, y evaluar la concordancia con losresultados de los European Public Assessment Reports.Método: Se elaboró una encuesta sobre las expectativas y preferenciasde los pacientes oncohematológicos respecto a la supervivencia globaly calidad de vida, con tres ítems: expectativas sobre el tratamiento, preferenciasde beneficio y disposición a recibir tratamientos novedosos conresultados inmaduros. Se revisaron los European Public Assessment Reportsde los fármacos indicados. Se utilizó el índice kappa (κ) para evaluar laconcordancia entre las expectativas y preferencias de los pacientes respectoal beneficio en supervivencia global y calidad de vida descrito enel European Public Assessment Report correspondiente. La concordanciaentre la disposición de los pacientes a recibir nuevos tratamientos y losresultados de los European Public Assessment Reports se evaluó mediantela concordancia absoluta (Ao). Resultados: Se incluyeron 29 participantes y se consultaron 19 EuropeanPublic Assessment Reports diferentes.

Objective: The European Medicines Agency’s marketing authorisationcriteria for drugs are reflected in the European Public Assessment Reports.The objective is to describe the expectations and preferences of our oncohematologicaloutpatients with respect to their oral treatments, and toevaluate the concordance with the results of European Public AssessmentReports.Method: A survey of onco-hematological patients’ expectations andpreferences about overall survival and quality of life was developed, withthree items: expectations on treatment, preferences of benefit and willingnessto receive novel treatments with non-definitive results. European PublicAssessment Reports of the indicated drugs were reviewed. Kappa index(κ) was used to assess the agreement between patients’ expectations andpreferences respect to the benefit in overall survival and quality of lifedescribed in the corresponding European Public Assessment Report. Concordancebetween willingness of patients to receive novel treatments andEuropean Public Assessment Reports results was evaluated by absoluteagreement (Ao). Results: There were 29 participants, and 19 different European PublicAssessment Reports were consulted. Patients’ expectations about theirtreatment: 82.1% expected improvement in overall survival and qualityof life; the κ value between expectations and results of European PublicAssessment Reports was 0.091 (confidence interval 95%: –0.025 to0.207). Patients’ preferences about benefit of their treatment: 92.6% preferredquality of life; the κ value was 0.016 (confidence interval 95%:–0.127 to 0.160). Willingness to receive novel treatments: 82.1% participantsdemanded benefit in overall survival or quality of life; exigenceswere met in Ao = 53.6% of patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introducción: El tratamiento quirúrgico durante la pandemia de COVID-19 es controvertido. Actualmente, la mayoría de las guías clínicas recomiendan posponer la cirugía a los pacientes durante la pandemia de COVID-19, aunque los datos de apoyo son escasos. Asumimos que un hospital sin COVID-19, apoyado en fuertes medidas de aislamiento y exámenes de detección específicos, podría reducir las complicaciones y nos permitiría continuar tratando a pacientes de alto riesgo. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo con análisis retrospectivo de 355 pacientes sometidos a cirugía oncológica no diferible entre el 16 de marzo de 2020 y el 14 de abril de 2020 en nuestra institución. El objetivo del estudio fue valorar la reestructuración hospitalaria y de los protocolos quirúrgicos para poder manejar con seguridad las cirugías no diferibles durante la primera ola de pandemia por COVID-19. Implementamos cambios estructurales y un protocolo anestésico-quirúrgico actualizado para aislar a los pacientes con COVID-19 de otros pacientes quirúrgicos. Se realizó una evaluación exhaustiva dirigida a detectar pacientes con COVID-19. Se solicitaron pruebas de PCR para pacientes sospechosos de COVID-19. Analizamos la mortalidad y las complicaciones relacionadas tanto con la cirugía como con la COVID-19 durante el ingreso hospitalario y también a los 15 días y al mes de la cirugía. Comparamos nuestros resultados con una muestra de pacientes similar en el periodo pre-pandemia. Resultados: De los 355 pacientes incluidos en nuestro estudio, 21 fueron eliminados debido a la infección por COVID-19, lo que deja un total de 334 pacientes en nuestro análisis final. Se encontraron complicaciones postoperatorias en 37 pacientes (11,07%). Dos pacientes fallecieron tras la cirugía (0,6%).(AU)

Introduction: Surgical treatment during COVID-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a COVID-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. Methods: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate COVID-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for COVID-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected COVID-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and COVID-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. Results: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to COVID-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, COVID-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-COVID era, we found no statistically significant differences.(AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This article aims to review the main information taken into account for the update of the GESIDA PLWH quality indicators. Finally 54 indicators covering a major part of the clinical activity in PLWH were defined. They evaluate the detection and diagnosis of PLWH, their follow-up and prevention, initiation and adaptation of ART, women's specific aspects, comorbidities, hospitalization, and AIDS-related mortality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment during Covid-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the Covid-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a Covid-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. METHODS: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate Covid-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for Covid-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected Covid-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and Covid-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to Covid-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, Covid-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-covid era, we found no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the surgical treatment of oncologic patients during the Covid-19 pandemic is safe, as long as the hospital performs surgeries under strict isolation measures and a robust screening method. It is necessary to select Covid-19 free hospitals for this matter in this and future pandemics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This article aims to review the main information taken into account for the update of the GESIDA PLWH quality indicators.Finally 54 indicators covering a major part of the clinical activity in PLWH were defined.They evaluate the detection and diagnosis of PLWH, their follow-up and prevention, initiation and adaptation of ART, women's specific aspects, comorbidities, hospitalization, and AIDS-related mortality.

Este artículo tiene como objetivo revisar la principal información que se tuvo en cuenta para la actualización de los indicadores de calidad de PVV de GESIDA.Finalmente, se definieron 54 indicadores que cubren la mayor parte de la actividad clínica en PVV. Los indicadores evalúan la detección y el diagnóstico de los PVV, su seguimiento y prevención, la iniciación y adherencia al TAR, aspectos específicos de la mujer, comorbilidades, hospitalización y mortalidad relacionada con el sida.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective: To analyse the care continuity across levels of care perceived by patients with chronic conditions in public healthcare networks in six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay), and to explore associated factors. Method: Cross-sectional study by means of a survey conducted to a random sample of chronic patients in primary care centres of the study networks (784 per country) using the questionnaire Cuestionario de Continuidad Asistencial Entre Niveles de Atención (CCAENA)©. Patients had at least one chronic condition and had used two levels of care in the 6 months prior to the survey for the same medical condition. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression were carried out. Results: Although there are notable differences between the networks analysed, the results show that chronic patients perceive significant discontinuities in the exchange of clinical information between primary care and secondary care doctors and in access to secondary care following a referral; as well as, to a lesser degree, regarding clinical coherence across levels. Relational continuity with primary care and secondary care doctors and information transfer are positively associated with care continuity across levels; no individual factor is systematically associated with care continuity. Conclusions: Main perceived discontinuities relate to information transfer and access to secondary care after a referral. The study indicates the importance of organisational factors to improve chronic patients' quality of care. (AU)

Objetivo: Analizar la continuidad asistencial entre niveles de atención percibida por pacientes con enfermedades crónicas en redes sanitarias públicas de seis países latinoamericanos (Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Uruguay) y explorar los factores asociados. Método: Estudio transversal mediante una encuesta realizada a una muestra aleatoria de pacientes crónicos en los centros de atención primaria de las redes de estudio (784 por país) utilizando el Cuestionario de Continuidad Asistencial Entre Niveles de Atención (CCAENA©). Los pacientes presentaban al menos una afección crónica y habían utilizado dos niveles de atención en los 6 meses anteriores a la encuesta por el mismo motivo. Se realizaron un análisis descriptivo y una regresión logística multivariante. Resultados: Aunque existen diferencias notables entre las redes analizadas, los resultados muestran que los pacientes crónicos perciben discontinuidades significativas en el intercambio de información clínica entre médicos de atención primaria y secundaria, y en el acceso a la atención secundaria tras una derivación, así como, en menor medida, en la coherencia clínica entre niveles. La continuidad de relación con los médicos de atención primaria y secundaria, y la transferencia de información, se asocian de manera positiva con la continuidad asistencial en ambos niveles; ningún factor individual se asocia sistemáticamente con la continuidad asistencial. Conclusiones: Las principales discontinuidades percibidas se relacionan con la transferencia de información y el acceso a la atención secundaria después de una derivación. El estudio indica la importancia de los factores organizativos para mejorar la calidad de la atención de los pacientes crónicos. (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment during COVID-19 pandemic is controversial. Currently, most clinical guidelines advise to defer surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the supporting data is sparse. We assumed that a COVID-19-free hospital, on the back of strong isolation measures and targeted screening, could reduce complications and enable us to continue treating high-risk patients. METHODS: Prospective study with retrospective analysis of 355 patients who had undergone nondeferrable oncological surgery between March 16th, 2020, and April 14th, 2020, at our institution. The aim of the study was to assess the hospital restructuring and surgical protocols to be able to safely handle non-deferrable surgeries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We implemented structural changes and an updated surgical-anesthetic protocol in order to isolate COVID-19 patients from other surgical patients. Comprehensive targeted screening for COVID-19 patients was made. PCR tests were requested for suspected COVID-19 patients. We analyzed mortality and complications related to both surgery and COVID-19 during hospital admission and also 15 and 30 days after surgery. We compared it with a sample of similar patients in the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Of the 355 patients enrolled in our study, 21 were removed due to COVID-19 infection, leaving a total of 334 patients in our final analysis. Post-operative complications were found in 37 patients (11.07%). Two patients died after surgery (0.6%). At the end of the study, COVID-19-related adverse outcomes were detected in six patients (1.79%). When comparing the complications of our original sample with the complications that occurred in the pre-COVID era, we found no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the surgical treatment of oncologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is safe, as long as the hospital performs surgeries under strict isolation measures and a robust screening method. It is necessary to select COVID-19 free hospitals for this matter in this and future pandemics.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the care continuity across levels of care perceived by patients with chronic conditions in public healthcare networks in six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay), and to explore associated factors. METHOD: Cross-sectional study by means of a survey conducted to a random sample of chronic patients in primary care centres of the study networks (784 per country) using the questionnaire Cuestionario de Continuidad Asistencial Entre Niveles de Atención (CCAENA)©. Patients had at least one chronic condition and had used two levels of care in the 6 months prior to the survey for the same medical condition. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression were carried out. RESULTS: Although there are notable differences between the networks analysed, the results show that chronic patients perceive significant discontinuities in the exchange of clinical information between primary care and secondary care doctors and in access to secondary care following a referral; as well as, to a lesser degree, regarding clinical coherence across levels. Relational continuity with primary care and secondary care doctors and information transfer are positively associated with care continuity across levels; no individual factor is systematically associated with care continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Main perceived discontinuities relate to information transfer and access to secondary care after a referral. The study indicates the importance of organisational factors to improve chronic patients' quality of care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a global concern, and anaesthesiologists are critically involved in patient safety-related measures and practices. Although anesthesia service has improved a lot over the last few decades, the information on the anesthesia practice and patient safety in India is lacking. The present survey was aimed to get the information on these aspects. METHODS: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey including both postgraduate trainees and anaesthesiologists, working across the different hospitals of India was conducted during February-May 2019. Google form was used as the survey; responses were directly downloaded as an Excel file and calculated in absolute numbers and percentages. Autonomous teaching institutes (ATI) were taken as standard, and Fisher's exact test was used for comparisons; P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Six-hundred (86.1%) responses were included for analysis. Pulse oximetry and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) were available in nearly 99% set-ups, but end-tidal carbon-di-oxide (EtCO2), temperature, oxygen, and anesthesia gas analyzer were lacking. ATI and corporate teaching hospitals were having almost all standard monitoring, but patient safety-related advanced equipment and medications were not present in many of the hospitals. The lack was highest in both public and private non-teaching hospitals (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patient safety and anesthesia-related services in India are unsatisfactory. Except for pulse oximetry and NIBP, the public and private sector non-teaching hospitals were lacking even the standard monitoring. Referral and top-level corporate and public sector institutes also have scope for improvement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: WHO uses the Caesarean section (CS) rate to monitor implementation of emergency obstetric care (EmOC). Although CS rates are rising in sub-Saharan Africa, maternal outcome has not improved. We audited indications for CS and related complications among women with severe maternal morbidity and mortality in a referral hospital in rural Tanzania. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was from November 2009 to November 2011. Women with severe maternal morbidity and mortality were identified and those with CS were included in this audit. Audit criteria were developed based on the literature review and (inter)national guidelines. Tanzanian and Dutch doctors reviewed hospital notes. The main outcome measured was prevalence of substandard quality of care leading to unnecessary CS and delay in performing interventions to prevent CS. RESULTS: A total of 216 maternal near misses and 32 pregnancy-related deaths were identified, of which 82 (33.1%) had a CS. Indication for CS was in accordance with audit criteria for 36 of 82 (44.0%) cases without delay. In 20 of 82 (24.4%) cases, the indication was correct; however, there was significant delay in providing standard obstetric care. In 16 of 82 (19.5%) cases, the indication for CS was not in accordance with audit criteria. During office hours, CS was more often correctly indicated than outside office hours (60.0% vs. 36.0%, P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Caesarean section rate is not an useful indicator to monitor quality of EmOC as a high rate of unnecessary and potentially preventable CS was identified in this audit.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify and describe the prescription profile, as well as to assess the adequacy of treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the diabetic population of a health district. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study aimed at a target population of 2,795 diabetic patients. Data were collected from the computerised clinical records of a sample of 380 individuals. The adequacy of treatment was assessed using the recommendations proposed by the Spanish societies of Rheumatology, Cardiology and Gastroenterology. RESULTS: More than one-quarter (28%) of the diabetic patients received treatment with NSAIDs. The most commonly used ones were ibuprofen, naproxen, and dexketoprofen, with a defined daily dose per 1,000 inhabitants per day of 35.3, 17.2, and 13.2, respectively. In patients with a history of chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular high risk, fewer NSAIDs were prescribed, while they were used most frequently in patients with a risk for gastrointestinal adverse events. The prescription was considered adequate in 46.5% of diabetic patients. The main causes of inappropriate use were the inadequate prescription of NSAIDs (25.2%), and the use of any NSAID other than naproxen (20.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The most prescribed NSAIDs were those showing a low cardiovascular risk profile. Treatment with NSAIDs was inadequate in more than half of the patients. Risk factors for cardiovascular, and especially gastrointestinal, events must be considered in order to avoid its use when not indicated, as well as the use of any NSAIDs other than naproxen.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and type of the clinical safety problems contained in the complaints made by patients and users in Primary Care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted by analysing both the complaint forms and the responses given to them in the period of one year. RESULTS: At least 4.6% of all claims analysed in this study contained clinical safety problems. The family physician is the professional who received the majority of the complaints (53.6%), and the main reason was the problems related to diagnosis (43%), mainly the delay in diagnosis. Other variables analysed were the severity of adverse events experienced by patients (in 68% of cases the patient suffered some harm), the subsequent impact on patient care, which was affected in 39% of cases (7% of cases even requiring hospital admission), and the level of preventability of adverse events (96% avoidable) described in the claims. Finally the type of response issued to each complaint was analysed, being purely bureaucratic in 64% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Complaints are a valuable source of information about the deficiencies identified by patients and healthcare users. There is considerable scope for improvement in the analysis and management of claims in general, and those containing clinical safety issues in particular. To date, in our area, there is a lack of appropriate procedures for processing these claims. Likewise, we believe that other pathways or channels should be opened to enable communication by patients and healthcare users.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and improve the quality of medical care provided to diabetic patients following the standards proposed by the American Diabetes Association. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted in three phases by analyzing data from the computerized clinical history of a sample of 340 patients. First phase (2010): cross-sectional, descriptive study which assessed the proportion of patients who met the standards related to the screening of diabetes, and goals of control and treatment. Subsequently, health professionals reviewed the results in order to promote the implementation of corrective action. Finally (2012), a new assessment with the same standards was performed. RESULTS: An increase in the number of patients treated with insulin (12.7% in 2010 and 20.2% in 2012) was observed (P < .01). There were also percentage increases in the number of patients who met the screening standards as regards analytical determinations: glycosylated hemoglobin (from 44.4% to 68.2%), lipid profile (47.6%-73.8%), creatinine (32.5% - 73.5%), and albumin-creatinine ratio (9.2%-24.4%) (P < .001). Only 6.4% (CI: 3.2- 9.8) of diabetic patients attained the composite target of glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%, blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 100 mg/dl in 2012. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that medical care has improved the goals related to analytical determinations and the number of insulin-treated diabetic type 2 patients. An optimal level was also maintained in metabolic control of diabetes, but there was still poor control of risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Asunto(s)