10 research outputs found

    Análisis de los elementos lingüísticos y culturales en la traducción del libro “Réveiller son médecin intérieur” de la autora Line Bolduc, realizada por estudiantes de la carrera de Traducción e Interpretación Francesa (2009), elaborado en el periodo de septiembre 2019 – enero 2020.

    Get PDF
    El presente trabajo consistió en el análisis de los elementos lingüísticos y culturales, encontrados en el libro Réveiller son médicin intérieur de la autora Line Bolduc, traducido por los estudiantes de la carrera de Traducción e Interpretación Francesa del año 2009, en el cual se identificaron las diversas técnicas utilizadas y dificultades que los estudiantes tuvieron al momento de hacer uso de los procesos traductológicos tales como: la teoría del sentido, los procedimientos de traducción y la resolución de los distintos problemas culturales. La traducción carece de una serie de elementos esenciales para poder calificarla como una traducción de calidad, pues la lectura del texto no es del todo fluida y en ocasiones no cumple con el principal propósito: hacer reír al lector. Por lo tanto, para algunos fragmentos se realizaron nuevas propuestas para mejorar la redacción y por ende facilitar la comprensión del texto, acompañados de las razones específicas del porque podrían ser cambiados. La realización de este análisis resultó ser fructífera puesto que ayudó a afianzar muchos conocimientos y a estar conscientes de lo importante que es dominar tanto la lengua origen como la lengua meta al realizar una traducción, además de conocer todas las técnicas y estrategias lingüísticas que permiten respetar y conservar el querer decir del autor. Palabras clave: Traducción, Procedimiento, Análisis, Sentido, Término, Teoría, Culturema, Problema, Naturalidad, Mensaje, Proceso

    Patient and stakeholder engagement learnings: PREP-IT as a case study

    Get PDF

    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

    Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

    No full text
    Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal

    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