Observación de la Responsabilidad Social Empresarial de las Actividades Económicas de Cafam para Sufragar la Crisis Sanitaria en Colombia

Anexo 1. Enlace del Código de Ética https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bQLyK3lauwtoJckS-DTxsouM2q6r3vtrsF5BVLCAOYQ/edit?usp=sharing Anexo 2. Formato de Recolección de Información https://forms.gle/ipULqmCjv6C6pMyM6Cafam es una empresa prestadora de servicios con una alta trayectoria en el mercado, contando con un gran posicionamiento de marca, el cual la convierte en objeto de estudio para la presente investigación. La responsabilidad social se crea a raíz de preocupación del deterioro severo del medio ambiente, por tal motivo todo tipo de organización que tenga en sus objetivos corporativos como énfasis responsabilidad social en su entorno, marca la diferencia ya que hace que sus empresas puedan contribuir con el mejoramiento continuo de las condiciones laborales y ambientales en el mercado. Por esto es importante identificar que programas tiene en la actualidad Cafam, que tengan como objetivo implementar la responsabilidad social, y así conocer de primera mano (de sus colaboradores) como desde su rol contribuyen a la consecución satisfactoria del programas ambientales, sociales, laborales, comerciales y corporativos. De igual manera con la recolección de información obtenida mediante la encuesta, se logra evidenciar que se presentan algunas falencias en el uso de los recursos naturales y la contaminación del entorno en el campo de recreación, por tal motivo como equipo de trabajo, se organiza un plan de estudio que ayude a minimizar el desperdicio de los recursos naturales y el daño ambiental por sus actividades, los cuales van hacer eje fundamental de estudio con el fin de lograr una solución parcial o definitiva a la problemática que presenta.Cafam is a service provider company with a long history in the market, with a great brand positioning, which makes it the object of study for this research. Social responsibility is created as a result of the reintegration of social resources obtained by companies, for this reason any type of organization that has in its corporate objectives as an emphasis social responsibility in its environment makes a difference since it makes its companies can contribute with the continuous improvement of labor and environmental conditions in the market. For this reason, it is important to identify what programs Cafam currently has, which have the objective of implementing social responsibility, and thus learn first-hand (from its collaborators) how, from their role, they contribute to the satisfactory achievement of environmental, social, labor, commercial and corporate. In the same way with the collection of information obtained through the survey, it is possible to show that there are some shortcomings in the use of natural resources and the contamination of the environment in the recreation field, for this reason as a work team, a study plan that helps minimize the waste of natural resources and environmental damage due to its activities, which will be the fundamental axis of study in order to achieve a partial or definitive solution to the problem it presents

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortiu (INICC) report, data summary of 43 countries for 2007-2012. Device-associated module

We report the results of an International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2007-December 2012 in 503 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. During the 6-year study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) U.S. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care–associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 605,310 patients hospitalized in the INICC's ICUs for an aggregate of 3,338,396 days. Although device utilization in the INICC's ICUs was similar to that reported from ICUs in the U.S. in the CDC's NHSN, rates of device-associated nosocomial infection were higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals: the pooled rate of central line–associated bloodstream infection in the INICC's ICUs, 4.9 per 1,000 central line days, is nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.9 per 1,000 central line days reported from comparable U.S. ICUs. The overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher (16.8 vs 1.1 per 1,000 ventilator days) as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (5.5 vs 1.3 per 1,000 catheter days). Frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (42.8% vs 10%) and imipenem (42.4% vs 26.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (71.2% vs 28.8%) and imipenem (19.6% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC's ICUs compared with the ICUs of the CDC's NHSN

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes

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