Pantallas digitales y síndrome de fatiga ocular en estudiantes de la carrera de enfermeira

El Síndrome de Fatiga Ocular (SFO), es reconocido por la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) dentro  del grupo de enfermedades laborales, la mayor parte de las personas que usan de forma  diaria pantallas digitales son niños y jóvenes que han crecido a la par de la era digital. Por esto es importante analizar el uso de pantallas digitales y el síndrome de fatiga ocular en estudiantes de la carrera de enfermería. El estudio es cuantitativo, de alcance correlacional. El diseño del estudio será de campo no experimental, transversal. La presente investigación será aplicada a 156 estudiantes como muestra. De 156 estudiantes el 53,2% presenta un nivel moderado de sintomatología visual, seguido de un 32,1% con rango severo, continuamente se evidencia que aquellos que tienen un nivel leve (14,7%). En conclusión existe un  nivel moderado de los síntomas oculares y visuales (CRVOS) asociados al uso prolongado de pantallas visuales (PVD)

Creación y validación del formato de valoración salud-enfermero en la paciente obstétrica

Introduction: the obstetric patient is defined as a female patient who presents certain characteristics that occur due to alterations in maternal physiology and diseases developed during pregnancy, up to the delivery process.Aim: to create and validate a health-nurse assessment form for obstetric patients during labor.Method: a quantitative, cross-sectional and applied study was carried out with the participation of six experts in the health area; two obstetricians and four nursing graduates to validate the instrument, who gave their opinion on the wording and coherence of the items proposed. The pilot plan was carried out in 14 rotating nursing interns where the survey was applied and reliability was obtained with Cronbach's alpha. Once the validation and reliability were obtained, the instrument was presented to the study sample corresponding to 99 students of the fifth semester of the nursing career at the Technical University of Ambato. Results: a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89 was observed, which is in a high reliability range; in addition, the format is valid, with an average acceptance rate of 1.00.Conclusions: the application of the evaluation form to 5th semester nursing students determined that the instrument is appropriate (76.77 % TD), clear (60.61 % TD), appropriately timed (51.52 % TD), easy to apply (72.73 % TD), useful (75.76 % TD) and recommended for use (73.74 % TD).Introducción: la paciente obstétrica se define como una paciente de sexo femenino que presenta ciertas características que se producen debido a alteraciones en la fisiología materna y las enfermedades desarrolladas durante el embarazo, hasta el proceso de parto.Objetivo: crear y validar un formato de valoración salud-enfermero para pacientes obstétricas durante el trabajo de parto.Método: se realizó un estudio cuantitativo, transversal y aplicado, donde participaron seis expertos del área de salud; dos obstetras y cuatro licenciadas en enfermería para validar el instrumento, quienes emitieron su opinión en cuanto a la redacción u coherencia de los ítems planteados. Se realizó el plan piloto en 14 internos rotativos de enfermería donde se aplicó la encuesta y se obtuvo la confiabilidad con el alfa de Cronbach. Una vez obtenida la validación y confiabilidad, se presentó el instrumento a la muestra de estudio correspondiente a 99 estudiantes del quinto semestre de la carrera de enfermería de la Universidad Técnica de Ambato. Resultados: se observa un alfa de Cronbach de 0,89, el mismo que se encuentra en un rango de confiabilidad alto, además, el formato consta de validez, con un promedio de aceptación del 1,00.Conclusiones: la aplicación del formato de valoración hacia los estudiantes de enfermería de 5to semestre determinó que, el instrumento es apropiado (76,77 % TD), es claro (60,61 % TD), tiene un tiempo apropiado (51,52 % TD), posee facilidad para aplicarlo (72,73 % TD), es útil (75,76 % TD) y es uso es recomendable (73,74 % TD)

Cuidados paliativos en pacientes con muerte cerebral

Introduction: Brain death is an injury at the brain level, which can cause irreversible damage, since death is the irreversible loss of brain functions. Objective: To identify the role of nursing staff in patients with brain death with a serious prognosis and the impact of the caregiver. Method: Systematic review of the literature through the selection of academic articles in different bibliographic sources. Results: 20 original scientific articles were selected that determined the incidence of this condition in young adults and the importance of palliative care. Conclusions: Brain death has a physical, psychological and emotional impact; The nursing staff is committed to the meticulous care of the patient focused on palliative care in order to alleviate pain, provide comfort, well-being, and a dignified death, providing emotional support to family members.Introducción: La muerte cerebral es una lesión a nivel encefálico, pudiendo ocasionar un daño irreversible, dado a que la muerte es la perdida irreversible de las funciones cerebrales.Objetivo: Identificar el rol del personal de enfermería en paciente con muerte cerebral con pronóstico grave y el impacto que cumple el cuidador.Método: Revisión sistemática de la literatura mediante la selección de artículos académicos en diferentes fuentes bibliográficas.Resultados: Se seleccionaron 20 artículos científicos originales que determinaron la incidencia de esta afección en adultos jóvenes y la importancia de los cuidados paliativos.Conclusiones: La muerte cerebral tiene un impacto físico, psicológico y emocional; el personal de enfermería se ve comprometido al cuidado minucioso del paciente centrados en los cuidados paliativos con el fin de aliviar el dolor, proporcionar confort, bienestar, y una muerte digna brindando apoyo emocional a los familiares

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

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health