7 research outputs found

    El lenguaje de la Educación como "lenguaje sectorial"

    Get PDF
    Actualmente, podemos observar que cuando hablamos con un médico, éste se dirige a nosotros con un lenguaje totalmente distinto al que utiliza cuando habla con otro médico. Lo mismo sucede entre abogados, científicos y otros profesionales que participan en una interacción. Igualmente sucede en el ámbito educativo, sin embargo, cuando escuchamos a dos profesionales de este terreno durante una conversación, nos percatamos de que entendemos el lenguaje que éstos están empleando, a diferencia de si escuchamos una conversación entre médicos o abogados. Esto es debido a la variedad de lenguajes que nuestra lengua ofrece y, el lenguaje de la Pedagogía es uno de ellos. El hecho que nos permite comprender una conversación entre profesores no es otro que el que se trate de un “lenguaje sectorial”, lo que facilita una intercomprensión entre hablantes profesionales y no profesionales. Por ello, el vocabulario de este lenguaje, está constituido por palabras propias de la lengua común, para así facilitar la intercomprensión. Sin embargo, ¿se puede decir que el lenguaje de la Pedagogía es también un lenguaje especializado?, ¿Comparte rasgos con otros lenguajes de este mismo carácter? ¿Qué rasgos tiene el lenguaje de la Pedagogía y qué diferencias se destacan con los lenguajes más especializados

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore