La familia en el cuidado y acompañamiento del adulto mayor durante el proceso de envejecimiento

Debido al aumento de esperanza de vida y a la disminución de la tasa de fecundidad, la proporción de personas mayores de 60 años está en aumento más rápidamente que cualquiera otro grupo de edad en casi todos los países. El envejecimiento de la población puede considerarse un éxito de las políticas de salud pública y el desarrollo socioeconómico, pero también constituye un reto para la sociedad que debe adaptarse a ello para mejorar al máximo la salud y la capacidad funcional de las personas mayores, así como su participación social y su seguridad. El proceso de envejecimiento genera una serie de demandas de cuidados y afectos que requieren dedicación, entrega y en el que la familia tiene un deber en el cuidado y atención del adulto mayor, una responsabilidad moral. La siguiente tesis tiene como objetivo conocer como es el cuidado y acompañamiento que brinda la familia al adulto mayor, así como sus limitaciones, falencias, conocimientos, aspectos de cuidado al enfrentar el proceso de envejecimiento, en pacientes internados en el servicio de clínica quirúrgica del Hospital Privado durante la investigación en el periodo de junio a noviembre de 2016.Fil: Yapu Anze, Roxana Mabel. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Escuela de Enfermería..Fil: Mora Gutiérrez, Elva. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Escuela de Enfermería..Fil: Cano, Marina Estefanía. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Escuela de Enfermería.

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

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

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

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

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

Biodiversity 2016. Status and Trends of Colombian Continental Biodiversity

This third volume of the annual report on biodiversity in Colombia continues the editorial line that begun in 2014. Using novel analytical and graphic proposals, these reports have the goal of communicating the contents to a broad public, making it available for discussion without sacrificing the quality of information. The challenge of communication continues to be a major part of the institutional project, and the new languages with which we are learning to communicate with society and other institutions are an experiment that we expect to be increasingly gratifying. The report for 2017 is already under construction and it counts on new digital technologies so the power of a colombian vital connection may be entirely expressed. The included content evidences that we are still far away from having a systematic follow-up about most of the topics related to the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services, which is the only way to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and investments made by society. In fact, a limitation that is recognized is that of identifying positive or negative changes that affect different levels of organization of life on this planet; therefore, our global navigation route of the Aichi targets is still to be verified. An additional purpose of this process includes the invitation of all Colombians to contribute in constructing and maintaining basic monitoring indicators for management since it is impossible to identify long-term trends of flora and fauna in the country without the support of institutions, researchers, and citizens. This challenge is immense in a megadiverse country such as Colombia. For this reason, the report will continue to open its pages to experts, and even indigenous peoples or local communities, for them to present their perspectives about environmental change and its effects on biodiversity in a systematic and documented manner. This has the objective of stimulating the commitment of everyone in the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The only way of overcoming the risk of extinction is through the active process of social learning in which all sectors assume a part of the complex responsibility in protecting the forms of life of the country, a roughly counted tenth of all creatures on Earth. I thank all the people that contributed in this Report, those who have supported us in the phases of production, and all readers and users, who are the ultimate judges of its utility.Bogotá, D. C

Biodiversidad 2016. Estado y Tendencias de la Biodiversidad Continental de Colombia

Esta tercera entrega del reporte anual de la biodiversidad en Colombia profundiza en la línea editorial iniciada el año 2014 mediante nuevas propuestas analíticas y gráficas, con la intención de garantizar que la información llegue a todos los públicos y pueda ser discutida de manera amena sin sacrificio de calidad. La apuesta comunicativa sigue siendo central en el proyecto institucional y los nuevos lenguajes con los que estamos aprendiendo a conversar con la sociedad y las instituciones son un experimento que esperamos sea cada vez más satisfactorio: ya estamos construyendo la versión 2017 con el apoyo de las nuevas tecnologías digitales de manera que la potencia de la conexión vital colombiana se exprese en toda su capacidad. Por los contenidos es evidente que aún distamos mucho de tener una capacidad de seguimiento sistemático para la mayoría de temas relativos a la gestión de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos, la única manera de evaluar si las medidas de política y las inversiones que realiza la sociedad están teniendo los efectos deseados. De hecho, parte de las limitaciones reconocidas por robustamente los cambios positivos o negativos que afectan los diferentes niveles de organización de la vida planetaria, por lo cual las mismas metas de Aichi, nuestra carta de navegación global, están pendientes de verificación. Un propósito adicional de este proceso es la invitación a todos los colombianos para contribuir con la construcción y alimentación de los indicadores básicos de seguimiento a la gestión, ya que es imposible identificar las tendencias de largo plazo en que están inmersas la flora y fauna colombianas sin el apoyo de las instituciones, los investigadores y los ciudadanos: en el país de la megadiversidad, el reto es inmenso. Por este motivo, este reporte irá abriendo sus páginas a expertos, incluso indígenas o de comunidades locales, para que presenten de manera sistemática y documentada sus perspectivas del cambio ambiental y sus efectos en la biodiversidad, con el ánimo de promover el compromiso de todos en su gestión. La única manera de superar el riesgo de extinción es mediante un activo proceso de aprendizajes sociales que haga que todos los sectores asuman una parte de la compleja responsabilidad que significa proteger todas las formas de vida del país, una décima parte mal contada de las planetarias. Agradezco a las decenas de personas que contribuyeron con este reporte, a quienes nos han apoyado en todas las etapas de producción y a sus lectores y usuarios, quienes son en último término los jueces de su utilidad.Bogotá, D. C

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

Revolution: Museo de las estrellas un paseo por la fama : Hollywood

Convocatoria proyectos de innovación de Extremadura 2020/2021Se describe un proyecto llevado a cabo entre 13 centros educativos extremeños que consistió en desarrollar cinco unidades de trabajo gamificadas, cinco historias detectivescas con misterios por resolver, donde se ponían a prueba las habilidades de lógica, la capacidad de observación, de concentración y de atención de los alumnos. Los objetivos principales de la propuesta fueron: promover la puesta en práctica de proyectos intercentros; impulsar pedagogías activas; desarrollar la competencia digital a través del uso de las pedagogías emergentes lo que ha permitido llevar a cabo una enseñanza presencial, híbrida y virtual y atender a la diversidadExtremaduraES

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

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

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

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