8 research outputs found

    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

    ASEAN Orthopaedic Association Education Committee - Orthopaedic curriculum for residency training 2019

    No full text
    In November 2013, Dr Dohar Tobing, who was the President of the ASEAN Orthopaedic Association at that time, organized a Seminar on Orthopaedic Education in Yogyakarta to discuss residency training in ASEAN. At this initial meeting the training program in each country was presented by representatives from each ASEAN country. Subsequently the ASEAN Orthopaedic Association established the Education Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Lee Eng Hin to develop a common syllabus/curriculum for all ASEAN countries based on minimum standards required to practice competently as a general orthopaedic surgeon. The main objective of having a common curriculum is to facilitate exchanges of residents and fellows amongst the ASEAN countries to increase their exposure to orthopaedic conditions in the region and improve their breadth and depth of knowledge and skills. The first meeting of the Education Committee was held in Cebu in November 2014 and the Committee has since met twice a year in May and November. Training programs in the ASEAN countries were discussed and a consensus was reached on the structure and length of the training program for the AOA curriculum. In May 2016, three workgroups were formed under the leadership of Professor David Choon, Dr Dohar Tobing and Professor Lee Eng Hin to develop the detailed curriculum in the following areas: a) General Orthopaedics/Trauma/Infection/Sports/Pathophysiology/Basic Science Lead: David Choon Members: Arturo C. Canete, Jean Pierre F. Leung, Apipop Kritsaneephaiboon, Maung Mg Htwe, Sabarul A. Mokhtar b) Adult Orthopaedics/Spine/Upper Limb/Foot & Ankle/Biomaterials/Biomechanics Lead: Dohar Tobing Members: Myint Thaung, Peter Lee, Yeo Sing Jin, Kamarul Ariffin Khalid, Khin Mg Myint, Azlina Abbas c) Pediatrics/Oncology Lead: Lee Eng Hin Members: Edward HM Wang, Kanyika Chamniprasas, Pornchai Mulpruek, Istan Irmansyah Irsan, Abdul Razak Sulaiman, Wan Faisham Nu’man Wan Ismail In addition to their contributions as workgroup members, the following individuals made substantial contributions in the following areas: Pathophysiology/Basic Science: Vivek Ajit Singh and David Choon General Ortho: Wan Faisham Nu’man Wan Ismail and Kamarul Ariffin Khalid Trauma: Arturo Cañete and Jean Pierre Leung Sports Medicine: Aung Myo Win Adult-Hip & Knee: Maung Mg Htwe and Myint Thaung Spine: Dohar Tobing Upper limb/Hand: Khin Mg Myint Foot & Ankle: Inderjeet Singh Paediatrics: Lee Eng Hin and Abdul Razak Sulaiman Oncology: Edward Wang and Istan Irmansyah Irsa

    A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy

    No full text
    Background: Twin birth is associated with a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes than singleton birth. It is unclear whether planned cesarean section results in a lower risk of adverse outcomes than planned vaginal delivery in twin pregnancy.\ud \ud Methods: We randomly assigned women between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation with twin pregnancy and with the first twin in the cephalic presentation to planned cesarean section or planned vaginal delivery with cesarean only if indicated. Elective delivery was planned between 37 weeks 5 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, with the fetus or infant as the unit of analysis for the statistical comparison.\ud \ud Results: A total of 1398 women (2795 fetuses) were randomly assigned to planned cesarean delivery and 1406 women (2812 fetuses) to planned vaginal delivery. The rate of cesarean delivery was 90.7% in the planned-cesarean-delivery group and 43.8% in the planned-vaginal-delivery group. Women in the planned-cesarean-delivery group delivered earlier than did those in the planned-vaginal-delivery group (mean number of days from randomization to delivery, 12.4 vs. 13.3; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the composite primary outcome between the planned-cesarean-delivery group and the planned-vaginal-delivery group (2.2% and 1.9%, respectively; odds ratio with planned cesarean delivery, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.74; P = 0.49).\ud \ud Conclusion: In twin pregnancy between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation, with the first twin in the cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not significantly decrease or increase the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, as compared with planned vaginal delivery

    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