RESUMO
En los últimos años el aumento de la prevalencia de obesidad y diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2), la aparición a edades más tempranas de DM2, así como el desplazamiento del embarazo a edades mayores conllevan a un aumento de casos de diabetes (DM) en el embarazo. En algunas pacientes la diabetes no se diagnostica y obviamente no se trata. Este hecho puede complicar un embarazo, especialmente en el período embriogénico. La aplicación de nuevos criterios de diagnóstico para la diabetes gestacional, la controversia en el uso y la seguridad de los antidiabéticos orales durante el embarazo, así como el uso de determinados análogos de insulina hacen indispensable que Latinoamérica, a través del Grupo de Trabajo de Diabetes y Embarazo de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Diabetes (ALAD), actualice sus recomendaciones. El desarrollo de las mismas se realizó en varias reuniones y trabajo conjunto del grupo. Se tuvo en cuenta el grado de nivel de evidencia, la experiencia de los referentes y la adaptación cultural según las regiones donde se implementarán las recomendaciones descriptas
Assuntos
Diabetes Gestacional , Glucose , Teste de Tolerância a Glucose , GravidezRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In response to the need for simple, rapid means of quantifying surgical capacity in low resource settings, Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) developed the personnel, infrastructure, procedures, equipment and supplies (PIPES) tool. The present investigation assessed the inter-rater reliability of the PIPES tool. METHODS: As part of a government assessment of surgical services in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the PIPES tool was translated into Spanish and applied in interviews with physicians at 31 public hospitals. An additional interview was conducted with nurses at a convenience sample of 25 of these hospitals. Physician and nurse responses were then compared to generate an estimate of reliability. For dichotomous survey items, inter-rater reliability between physicians and nurses was assessed using the Cohen's kappa statistic and percent agreement. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement for continuous items. RESULTS: Cohen's kappa was 0.46 for infrastructure, 0.43 for procedures, 0.26 for equipment, and 0 for supplies sections. The median correlation coefficient was 0.91 for continuous items. Correlation was 0.79 for the PIPES index, and ranged from 0.32 to 0.98 for continuous response items. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of the PIPES tool was moderate for the infrastructure and procedures sections, fair for the equipment section, and poor for supplies section when comparing surgeons' responses to nurses' responses-an extremely rigorous test of reliability. These results indicate that the PIPES tool is an effective measure of surgical capacity but that the equipment and supplies sections may need to be revised.
Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Cirurgia Geral , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Hospitais Públicos , Avaliação das Necessidades , Equipamentos Cirúrgicos/provisão & distribuição , Bolívia , Administradores Hospitalares , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Corpo Clínico Hospitalar , Recursos Humanos de Enfermagem Hospitalar , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios , Recursos HumanosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to document surgical capacity at public medical centers in a middle-income Latin American country using the Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies (PIPES) survey tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied the PIPES tool at six urban and 25 rural facilities in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Outcome measures included the availability of items in five domains (Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies) and the PIPES index. PIPES indices were calculated by summing scores from each domain, dividing by the total number of survey items, and multiplying by 10. RESULTS: Thirty-one of the 32 public facilities that provide surgical care in Santa Cruz were assessed. Santa Cruz had at least 7.8 surgeons and 2.8 anesthesiologists per 100,000 population. However, these providers were unequally distributed, such that nine rural sites had no anesthesiologist. Few rural facilities had blood banking (4/25), anesthesia machines (11/25), postoperative care (11/25), or intensive care units (1/25). PIPES indices ranged from 5.7-13.2, and were significantly higher in urban (median 12.6) than rural (median 7.8) areas (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation is novel in its application of a Spanish-language version of the PIPES tool in a middle-income Latin American country. These data document substantially greater surgical capacity in Santa Cruz than has been reported for Sierra Leone or Rwanda, consistent with Bolivia's development status. Unfortunately, surgeons are limited in rural areas by deficits in anesthesia and perioperative services. These results are currently being used to target local quality improvement initiatives.