Beneficios de la prescripción enfermera en el manejo del paciente con dolor

RESUMEN El desarrollo de la prescripción enfermera es una tendencia global en los últimos años y está incrementándose el número de países que introducen la prescripción enfermera en sus sistemas sanitarios. En España se encuentra legalizada desde el año 2009 pero pendiente de desarrollar la normativa que la regule. El objetivo de esta revisión es determinar cuáles son los beneficios que aporta la prescripción enfermera en el manejo del paciente con dolor. La metodología empleada ha sido realizar una búsqueda en las principales bases de datos biomédicas con la finalidad de encontrar la literatura existente sobre el tema. Se han seleccionado 26 artículos para su revisión, procedentes mayoritariamente de países anglosajones. Los resultados encontrados muestran los beneficios que se obtienen con la prescripción enfermera destacando el incremento de la autonomía profesional, entre otros. También muestran las necesidades formativas y las diferencias que existen entre los distintos países al respecto, la importancia de las relaciones con el resto de los miembros del equipo de trabajo como elemento clave para adquirir confianza y seguridad para prescribir y la percepción de los pacientes sobre la prescripción enfermera. Las conclusiones sobre la prescripción enfermera en el manejo del paciente con dolor es que son múltiples los beneficios que se obtienen para el paciente, para los profesionales de enfermería y para el sistema sanitario. Se debe seguir investigando y publicando estudios sobre el tema con la finalidad de facilitar un desarrollo más equitativo entre los diferentes países.Traballo fin de grao (UDC.FEP). Enfermaría. Curso 2013/201

Principios básicos para la accesibilidad en instituciones de educación superior

148 páginasEste libro es el resultado del esfuerzo colaborativo, dirigido a promover una sociedad sustentable más justa y equitativa a través del desarrollo de lineamientos y metodología para evaluar la accesibilidad en Instituciones de Educación Superior, mostrando su aplicabilidad en el caso particular de la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapotzalco. Contribuye al desarrollo de la noción de accesibilidad, brindando herramientas que coadyuvan a diseñar y aplicar soluciones a la problemática de la inclusión plena e integral de personas con discapacidad. Obra dirigida a promover una sociedad sustentable, más justa y equitativa, a través del desarrollo de lineamientos, metodología y la propuesta de instrumentos para el análisis de la accesibilidad en Instituciones de Educación Superior, mostrando su aplicabilidad en el caso particular de la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapotzalco.PRODEP Universidad Autónoma Metropolitan

Risk categories in COVID-19 based on degrees of inflammation: data on more than 17,000 patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 registry

Background: the inflammation or cytokine storm that accompanies COVID-19 marks the prognosis. This study aimed to identify three risk categories based on inflammatory parameters on admission. Methods: retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, collected and followed-up from 1 March to 31 July 2020, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The three categories of low, intermediate, and high risk were determined by taking into consideration the terciles of the total lymphocyte count and the values of C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, and D-dimer taken at the time of admission. Results: a total of 17,122 patients were included in the study. The high-risk group was older (57.9 vs. 64.2 vs. 70.4 years; p < 0.001) and predominantly male (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 60.1%; p < 0.001). They had a higher degree of dependence in daily tasks prior to admission (moderate-severe dependency in 10.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 17%; p < 0.001), arterial hypertension (36.9% vs. 45.2% vs. 52.8%; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (28.4% vs. 37% vs. 40.6%; p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (11.9% vs. 17.1% vs. 20.5%; p < 0.001), ischemic heart disease (3.7% vs. 6.5% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.001), heart failure (3.4% vs. 5.2% vs. 7.6%; p < 0.001), liver disease (1.1% vs. 3% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.002), chronic renal failure (2.3% vs. 3.6% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001), cancer (6.5% vs. 7.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.7% vs. 5.4% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001). They presented more frequently with fever, dyspnea, and vomiting. These patients more frequently required high flow nasal cannula (3.1% vs. 4.4% vs. 9.7%; p < 0.001), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (0.9% vs. 3% vs. 6.3%; p < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (0.6% vs. 2.7% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.001), and ICU admission (0.9% vs. 3.6% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001), and had a higher percentage of in-hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 6.2% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001). The three risk categories proved to be an independent risk factor in multivariate analyses. Conclusion: the present study identifies three risk categories for the requirement of high flow nasal cannula, mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality based on lymphopenia and inflammatory parameters

Frequency, risk factors, and outcomes of hospital readmissions of COVID-19 patients

To determine the proportion of patients with COVID-19 who were readmitted to the hospital and the most common causes and the factors associated with readmission. Multicenter nationwide cohort study in Spain. Patients included in the study were admitted to 147 hospitals from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Readmission was defined as a new hospital admission during the 30 days after discharge. Emergency department visits after discharge were not considered readmission. During the study period 8392 patients were admitted to hospitals participating in the SEMI-COVID-19 network. 298 patients (4.2%) out of 7137 patients were readmitted after being discharged. 1541 (17.7%) died during the index admission and 35 died during hospital readmission (11.7%, p = 0.007). The median time from discharge to readmission was 7 days (IQR 3-15 days). The most frequent causes of hospital readmission were worsening of previous pneumonia (54%), bacterial infection (13%), venous thromboembolism (5%), and heart failure (5%). Age [odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95% confident interval (95% CI): 1.01-1.03], age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index score (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.26-2.69), asthma (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04-2.22), hemoglobin level at admission (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86-0.99), ground-glass opacification at admission (OR: 0.86; 95% CI:0.76-0.98) and glucocorticoid treatment (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.00-1.66) were independently associated with hospital readmission. The rate of readmission after hospital discharge for COVID-19 was low. Advanced age and comorbidity were associated with increased risk of readmission

Investigating Sex Differences in Emotion Recognition, Learning, and Regulation among Youths with Conduct Disorder

Objective: Conduct disorder (CD) is a serious neurodevelopmental disorder marked by notably higher prevalence rates for boys than girls. Converging evidence suggests that CD is associated with impairments in emotion recognition, learning, and regulation. However, it is not known whether there are sex differences in the relationship between CD and emotion dysfunction. Prior studies on emotion functioning in CD have so far been underpowered for investigating sex differences. Therefore, our primary aim was to characterize emotion processing skills in a large sample of girls and boys with CD compared to typically developing controls (TDCs) using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. Method: We included 542 youths with CD (317 girls) and 710 TDCs (479 girls), 9 to 18 years of age, from a European multisite study (FemNAT-CD). Participants completed three experimental tasks assessing emotion recognition, learning, and regulation, respectively. Data were analyzed to test for effects of group and sex, and group-by-sex interactions, while controlling for potentially confounding factors. Results: Relative to TDCs, youths with CD showed impaired emotion recognition (that was related to more physical and proactive aggression, and higher CU traits), emotional learning (specifically from punishment), and emotion regulation. Boys and girls with CD, however, displayed similar impairments in emotion processing. Conclusion: This study provides compelling evidence for a relationship between CD and deficient neurocognitive functioning across three emotional domains that have previously been linked to CD etiology. However, there was no support for sex-specific profiles of emotion dysfunction, suggesting that current neurocognitive models of CD apply equally to both sexes.</p

Mortality and other adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19 in association with glucose-lowering drugs: a nationwide cohort study

Background: Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. Methods: We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine’s registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. Results: A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed

Mortality and other adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19 in association with glucose-lowering drugs: a nationwide cohort study

Background: Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. Methods: We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. Results: A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed

Clinical and Ecological Impact of an Educational Program to Optimize Antibiotic Treatments in Nursing Homes (PROA-SENIOR): A Cluster, Randomized, Controlled Trial and Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

[Background] Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are recommended in nursing homes (NHs), although data are limited. We aimed to determine the clinical and ecological impact of an ASP for NHs.[Methods] We performed a cluster, randomized, controlled trial and a before–after study with interrupted time-series analyses in 14 NHs for 30 consecutive months from July 2018 to December 2020 in Andalusia, Spain. Seven facilities implemented an ASP with a bundle of 5 educational measures (general ASP) and 7 added 1-to-1 educational interviews (experimental ASP). The primary outcome was the overall use of antimicrobials, calculated monthly as defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 resident days (DRD).[Results] The total mean antimicrobial consumption decreased by 31.2% (−16.72 DRD; P = .045) with respect to the preintervention period; the overall use of quinolones and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid dropped by 52.2% (P = .001) and 42.5% (P = .006), respectively; and the overall prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) decreased from 24.7% to 17.4% (P = .012). During the intervention period, 12.5 educational interviews per doctor were performed in the experimental ASP group; no differences were found in the total mean antimicrobial use between groups (−14.62 DRD; P = .25). Two unexpected coronavirus disease 2019 waves affected the centers increasing the overall mean use of antimicrobials by 40% (51.56 DRD; P < .0001).[Conclusions] This study suggests that an ASP for NHs appears to be associated with a decrease in total consumption of antimicrobials and prevalence of MDROs. This trial did not find benefits associated with educational interviews, probably due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.[Clinical Trials Registration] NCT03543605.Peer reviewe

Clustering COVID-19 ARDS patients through the first days of ICU admission. An analysis of the CIBERESUCICOVID Cohort

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be classified into sub-phenotypes according to different inflammatory/clinical status. Prognostic enrichment was achieved by grouping patients into hypoinflammatory or hyperinflammatory sub-phenotypes, even though the time of analysis may change the classification according to treatment response or disease evolution. We aimed to evaluate when patients can be clustered in more than 1 group, and how they may change the clustering of patients using data of baseline or day 3, and the prognosis of patients according to their evolution by changing or not the cluster.Methods Multicenter, observational prospective, and retrospective study of patients admitted due to ARDS related to COVID-19 infection in Spain. Patients were grouped according to a clustering mixed-type data algorithm (k-prototypes) using continuous and categorical readily available variables at baseline and day 3.Results Of 6205 patients, 3743 (60%) were included in the study. According to silhouette analysis, patients were grouped in two clusters. At baseline, 1402 (37%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2341(63%) in cluster 2. On day 3, 1557(42%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2086 (57%) in cluster 2. The patients included in cluster 2 were older and more frequently hypertensive and had a higher prevalence of shock, organ dysfunction, inflammatory biomarkers, and worst respiratory indexes at both time points. The 90-day mortality was higher in cluster 2 at both clustering processes (43.8% [n = 1025] versus 27.3% [n = 383] at baseline, and 49% [n = 1023] versus 20.6% [n = 321] on day 3). Four hundred and fifty-eight (33%) patients clustered in the first group were clustered in the second group on day 3. In contrast, 638 (27%) patients clustered in the second group were clustered in the first group on day 3.Conclusions During the first days, patients can be clustered into two groups and the process of clustering patients may change as they continue to evolve. This means that despite a vast majority of patients remaining in the same cluster, a minority reaching 33% of patients analyzed may be re-categorized into different clusters based on their progress. Such changes can significantly impact their prognosis

The evolution of the ventilatory ratio is a prognostic factor in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients

Background: Mortality due to COVID-19 is high, especially in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The purpose of the study is to investigate associations between mortality and variables measured during the first three days of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 intubated at ICU admission. Methods: Multicenter, observational, cohort study includes consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 44 Spanish ICUs between February 25 and July 31, 2020, who required intubation at ICU admission and mechanical ventilation for more than three days. We collected demographic and clinical data prior to admission; information about clinical evolution at days 1 and 3 of mechanical ventilation; and outcomes. Results: Of the 2,095 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, 1,118 (53.3%) were intubated at day 1 and remained under mechanical ventilation at day three. From days 1 to 3, PaO2/FiO2 increased from 115.6 [80.0-171.2] to 180.0 [135.4-227.9] mmHg and the ventilatory ratio from 1.73 [1.33-2.25] to 1.96 [1.61-2.40]. In-hospital mortality was 38.7%. A higher increase between ICU admission and day 3 in the ventilatory ratio (OR 1.04 [CI 1.01-1.07], p = 0.030) and creatinine levels (OR 1.05 [CI 1.01-1.09], p = 0.005) and a lower increase in platelet counts (OR 0.96 [CI 0.93-1.00], p = 0.037) were independently associated with a higher risk of death. No association between mortality and the PaO2/FiO2 variation was observed (OR 0.99 [CI 0.95 to 1.02], p = 0.47). Conclusions: Higher ventilatory ratio and its increase at day 3 is associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation at ICU admission. No association was found in the PaO2/FiO2 variation