ADESÃO AO TRATAMENTO NA CLÍNICA NEUROPSIQUIÁTRICA: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA

Adherence to treatment in psychiatric outpatient clinics is a vital element of mental health care. Although significant challenges are faced, it is possible to improve adherence through educational strategies, support and collaboration between patients and healthcare professionals. By recognizing the importance of this aspect and working to overcome obstacles, we can improve outcomes for patients and promote more robust and resilient mental health in our communities. This study aimed to investigate the main factors influencing adherence to treatment in psychiatric outpatient clinics. To this end, a systematic literature review was conducted, selecting scientific articles published between 2019 and 2024, available in the Scielo, Medline and Lilacs databases. After an in-depth analysis and discussion of the results, it was concluded that adherence to treatment in psychiatric outpatient clinics is influenced by a variety of factors, including continuity in therapeutic follow-up, patients' mentalization capacity, the model of care and sociodemographic and clinical influences, highlighting the need for personalized and integrated approaches to improve care in these settings.A adesão ao tratamento em ambulatórios psiquiátricos é um elemento vital do cuidado em saúde mental. Embora sejam enfrentados desafios significativos, é possível melhorar a adesão por meio de estratégias educacionais, de suporte e de colaboração entre pacientes e profissionais de saúde. Ao reconhecer a importância desse aspecto e trabalhar para superar os obstáculos, pode-se melhorar os resultados para os pacientes e promover uma saúde mental mais robusta e resiliente em nossas comunidades. Este estudo teve como objetivo investigar os principais fatores que influenciam a adesão ao tratamento nos ambulatórios psiquiátricos. Para isso, foi conduzida uma revisão sistemática da literatura, selecionando artigos científicos publicados entre 2019 e 2024, disponíveis nas bases de dados Scielo, Medline e Lilacs. Após uma análise aprofundada e discussão dos resultados, chegou-se à conclusão de que a adesão ao tratamento nos ambulatórios psiquiátricos é influenciada por uma variedade de fatores, incluindo a continuidade no acompanhamento terapêutico, a capacidade de mentalização dos pacientes, o modelo de atendimento e as influências sociodemográficas e clínicas, destacando a necessidade de abordagens personalizadas e integradas para melhorar o cuidado nesses ambientes

Escalas de Ramsay e Richmond são equivalentes para a avaliação do nível de sedação em pacientes gravemente enfermos Ramsay and Richmond's scores are equivalent to assessment sedation level on critical patients

OBJETIVO: O objetivo principal deste estudo foi comparar o desempenho das escalas de sedação de Ramsay e Richmond em pacientes críticos sob ventilação mecânica em um hospital universitário. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo onde foram incluídos todos os pacientes sob ventilação mecânica com pelo menos 48 horas de internação, durante quatro meses, totalizando 45 pacientes. Foram avaliados diariamente a modalidade de sedação, dose dos sedativos e analgésicos e o nível de sedação através das escalas de Ramsay e Richmond. O teste T de Student, os índices de correlação de Pearson e Spearman, e a elaboração de curvas Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) foram utilizados para a análise estatística. RESULTADOS: A mortalidade geral observada foi de 60%. Nesta série, o tempo de sedação e a dose de sedativos utilizada não se correlacionaram com a mortalidade. Sedação profunda (Ramsay > 4 ou Richmond < -3) correlacionou-se positivamente com uma maior probabilidade de morte, com uma área sob a curva (ASC) > 0,78. Níveis adequados de sedação (Ramsay 2 a 4 ou Richmond 0 a -3) correlacionaram-se sensivelmente à probabilidade de sobrevivência, com uma ASC > 0,80. Em 63 evoluções (8,64%) foram observados níveis baixos de sedação, porém não se evidenciou nenhuma correlação entre a ocorrência de agitação e prognósticos desfavoráveis. Houve uma boa correlação entre as escalas Ramsay e Richmond (Pearson > 0,810 - p<0,0001). CONCLUSÃO: Neste estudo, as escalas de Ramsay e Richmond mostraram-se equivalentes para a avaliação de sedações profunda, insuficiente e adequada e ambos demonstraram boa correlação com mortalidade em pacientes excessivamente sedados.<br>OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to compare performance of the Ramsay and Richmond sedation scores on mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, in a university-affiliated hospital. METHODS: This was a 4-month prospective study, which included a total of 45 patients mechanically ventilated, with at least 48 hours stay in the intensive care unit. Each patient was assessed daily for sedation mode, sedative and analgesic doses and sedation level using the Ramsay and Richmond scores. Statistical analysis was made using Student's t-test, Pearson's and Spearman's correlation, and constructing ROC-curves. RESULTS: A high general mortality of 60% was observed. The length of sedation and daily dose of medication did not correlate with mortality. Deep sedation (Ramsay > 4 or Richmond < -3) was positively correlated with probability of death with an AUC > 0.78. An adequate level of sedation (Ramsay 2 to 4 or Richmond 0 to -3) was sensitively correlated with probability of survival with an AUC > 0.80. A low level of sedation was observed in 63 days evaluated (8.64%), and no correlation was found between occurrence of agitation and unfavorable outcomes. Correlation between Ramsay and Richmond scores (Pearson's > 0.810 - p<0.0001) was good. CONCLUSION: In this study, Ramsay and Richmond sedation scores were similar for the assessment of deep, insufficient and adequate sedation. Both have good correlation with mortality in over sedated patients

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p&lt;0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status