Redes de conocimiento SENA : lineamientos para su desarrollo

Documento que presenta los lineamientos para el desarrollo de las redes de conocimiento SENA en tres secciones. En la primera se introduce a los aspectos generales de las redes de conocimiento SENA, a continuación se presentan los lineamientos para el desarrollo de las redes de conocimiento sectorial y finalmente se describen los lineamientos para el desarrollo de las redes de conocimiento institucional.Document that presents the guidelines for the development of the SENA knowledge networks in three sections. In the first one, the general aspects of the SENA knowledge networks are introduced, then the guidelines for the development of sectoral knowledge networks are presented, and finally the guidelines for the development of institutional knowledge networks are described.Redes de conocimiento -- ¿Cuál es el alcance de este documento? -- ¿Qué antecedentes del trabajo en redes existen en el SENA? -- ¿Por qué redes del conocimiento SENA? -- ¿Cual es el marco estratégico de las redes de conocimiento SENA? -- ¿Qué son las redes de conocimiento SENA? -- ¿Cuáles son los objetivos de las redes de conocimiento SENA? -- ¿Cuántos tipos de redes de conocimiento existen en el SENA y cuales son? -- Redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA -- ¿Qué es una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cuales son los criterios para conformar una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo se conforma, modifica o elimina una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cuando se modifica o elimina una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cuáles son los criterios para asociar centros de formación a las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo se asocian los centros de formación a una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cuales son los centros líderes de las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo funciona una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Qué programas estratégicos componen el plan de acción de las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo desarrollar el programa estratégico “más pertinencia” del plan de acción de las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo desarrollar el programa estratégico “más internacionalización” del plan de acción de las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo desarrollar el programa estratégico “más calidad” del plan de acción de las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo desarrollar el programa estratégico “más cobertura” del plan de acción de las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Qué proyectos de conocimiento se pueden desarrollar en los programas estratégicos que componen el plan de acción de una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo desarrollan los proyectos estratégicos las redes de conocimiento sectorial? -- ¿Qué pasa cuando un programa, proyecto o acción es común más de una red de conocimiento sectorial SENA? -- ¿Cómo es la estructura de una red de conocimiento sectorial? -- ¿Cuales son las redes de conocimiento sectorial SENA iniciales? -- Redes de conocimiento institucional SENA -- ¿Qué es una red de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- ¿Cómo se conforma, modifica o elimina una red de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- ¿Cuáles son los criterios establecidos para conformar una red de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- Cuales son los criterios establecidos para modificar o eliminar una red de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- ¿Cómo funcionan las redes de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- ¿Qué programas estratégicos componen el plan de acción de las redes de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- ¿Qué proyectos se desarrollan en los programas estratégicos del plan de acción de redes de conocimiento institucional? -- Cuál es la estructura de las redes de conocimiento institucional SENA? -- ¿Cuáles son las redes de conocimiento institucional SENA iniciales?naDocumento elaborado sobre el proceso de construcción de la propuesta de redes de conocimiento validada con la Universidad del Norte y en el contexto del Plan estratégico 2011–2014, con visión 2020106 página

Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception

Las tecnologías de información y comunicación - (TICs) como apoyo en el proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje de las instituciones de educación superior. Estudio caso Politécnico Grancolombiano

Magíster en AdministraciónMaestrí

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially