Prescripción de analgésicos y reacciones adversas en pacientes hospitalizados

Justificación. El dolor tiene alta prevalencia en la población general, siendo mayor en pacientes hospitalizados, con cifras cercanas al 80%. El control del dolor no siempre es adecuado debido a varios factores, siendo uno de los más importantes, el escasoconocimiento en el manejo de los analgésicos. Como una de las primeras medidasde mejoramiento asistencial para reducir el dolor en un hospital, debe conocerse la prevalencia de este síntoma y, asimismo, debe analizarse el abordaje terapéutico realizado.Es por esto por lo que este estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar el uso de analgésicos en pacientes de un hospital de cuarto nivel en Bogotá, Colombia, identificar los analgésicos más utilizados, el rango de dosis, las posibles interacciones y reacciones adversas a medicamentos (RAM) existentes. Resultados. El 78,9% de los pacienteshospitalizados presentaban dolor. Se prescribió analgésicos en 561 pacientes hospitalizados.Entre los más utilizados se encuentran: el acetaminofén (33,3%) y eltramadol (29,7%). El rango de duración de la terapia analgésica más común fue de 1 a 5 días (81,7%). Se identificaron 37 casos de sobredosificación y tres de terapia duplicada. Se presentaron 28 casos de reacciones adversas a medicamento (RAM).Discusión. El adecuado tratamiento del dolor cobra vital importancia al evaluar la satisfacción del paciente. Se encuentran diferentes tendencias de uso de analgésicos en pacientes hospitalizados, siendo los más utilizados el acetaminofén y los antiinflamatoriosno esteroideos (AINE). Se debe seguir investigando en este tema para tener evidencias científicas más firmes que permitan dictar unos lineamientos de aplicación universal para un correcto alivio del dolor.Justification. Pain has a high prevalence in the general population, being higher in inpatient, with figures close to 80%. Pain management is not always suitable due to several factors, one of the most important the lack of knowledge in the managementof analgesics. One of the first measures of improving care to reduce pain in a hospital should be determine the prevalence of this symptom and analyze the therapeutical proach performed. That is why the aim of this study was to analyze the use of analgesics in patients of a fourth-level hospital in Bogotá, Colombia, identify the mostcommonly used analgesics, range of doses, possible interactions and adverse drugs reactions. Results. The 78.9% of the patients were pain. Analgesics were prescribed in 561 hospitalized patients. The most used were acetaminophen (33.3%) and tramadol(29.7%). The most common range of duration of analgesic therapy was 1-5 days (81.7%). 37 cases of overdosing and 3 cases of duplicate therapy were identified. 28 cases of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were presented. Discussion. Proper treatmentof pain plays a vital role in assessing patient satisfaction. There are different trends analgesic use in inpatient, being the most used acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). It should further investigate on this issueto have stronger scientific evidence to dictate a universal application guidelines forproper pain relief

Innovative teaching in pharmacology learning for medicine students abstract

Introducción: la farmacología tiene alta relevancia en la formación del médico. Las clases expositivas son poco motivadoras para los estudiantes; esto ha llevado a incluir estrategias que despierten interés. Material y métodos: descripción de didácticas para apoyar el aprendizaje de la farmacología en tutorías por pares estudiantes (Caso clínico, Cubo mágico, Stop, Crucigrama, Parejas perfectas, Memoria al límite, Encapsúlate, Ritmo y fila, Ruleta, Sopa de letras, Cadeneta, Mapa conceptual y debate, Concéntrese). Se aplicó una encuesta semiestructurada para explorar la percepción de los estudiantes respecto de las tutorías. Resultados: la encuesta semiestructurada se aplicó a 37 estudiantes. El 65% está totalmente de acuerdo en que la asistencia a las monitorías de farmacología contribuye de manera positiva a su aprendizaje. El 40,5% refirió que las tutorías apoyan la obtención de un resultado favorable para la aprobación de la asignatura. El 62% manifestó la utilidad de las tutorías para definir los medicamentos que se usarán en el paciente. El 72,9% recomendaría a sus compañeros asistir a las tutorías. Entre el 24,3 y 48,6%, según la didáctica de aprendizaje, consideró que estas son excelentes. Discusión: se describe la experiencia del uso de didácticas que apoyan el aprendizaje de la farmacología, basadas en actividades lúdicas, promoviendo el aprendizaje significativo de la farmacología. En las tutorías con pares, los estudiantes se sienten en mayor confianza, participan activamente, lo que genera un ambiente que facilita el aprendizaje. Los estudiantes asistentes a las tutorías de farmacología refieren que hay empatía habitualmente con los tutores durante las sesiones.Introduction: pharmacology is fundamental in the medical training. As theoretical classes hardly motivate students. This has led to include strategies that arouse interest. Methods: class syllabus, partnership working and informal activities by student tutors (clinical cases, crosswords, ”cubo mágico”, “stop”, “parejas perfectas”, ”memoria al límite”, “encápsulate”, “ritmo y fila”, “ruleta”, “sopa de letras”, ”cadeneta”, “concentrese” and brain storming) were used in tutoring classes to help students in the pharmacology learning process. Questionnaires were used to collect feedback from students about tutorials. Results: the questionnaire was given to 37 students. 65% of them agreed on the positive impact the classes had on their learning; 40.5% found positive correlation between the tutoring classes and finals results; 62% referred that tutoring classes helped them defining how to match symptoms and drugs; 72.9% would recommend other students to attend the tutoring classes. Between 24.3% and 48.6% of the students, depending on the methods used, rated the experience as “excellent”. Discussion: the experience regarding the use of new didactic methods was exposed. It encouraged students to approach pharmacology and it helped them improving their knowledge about the discipline through non-academic activities. Students reported that learning become easier during tutoring classes thanks to the informal context and informal relationship with the tutor

Analgesic’s prescription and drug adverse events in hospitalized patients

Justificación. El dolor tiene alta prevalencia en la población general, siendo mayor en pacientes hospitalizados, con cifras cercanas al 80%. El control del dolor no siempre es adecuado debido a varios factores, siendo uno de los más importantes, el escaso conocimiento en el manejo de los analgésicos. Como una de las primeras medidas de mejoramiento asistencial para reducir el dolor en un hospital, debe conocerse la prevalencia de este síntoma y, asimismo, debe analizarse el abordaje terapéutico realizado. Por este motivo este estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar el uso de analgé-sicos en pacientes de un hospital de cuarto nivel en Bogotá, Colombia, identificar los analgésicos más utilizados, el rango de dosis, las posibles interacciones y reacciones adversas a medicamentos (RAM) existentes. Resultados. El 78,9% de los pacientes hospitalizados presentaban dolor. Se prescribió analgésicos en 561 pacientes hospi-talizados. Los más utilizados fueron: acetaminofén (33,3%) y tramadol (29,7%). El rango de duración de la terapia analgésica más común fue de 1 a 5 días (81,7%). Se identificaron 37 casos de sobredosificación y tres de terapia duplicada. Se presentaron 28 casos de reacciones adversas a medicamento (RAM). Discusión. El adecuado tratamiento del dolor cobra vital importancia al evaluar la satisfacción del paciente. Se encuentran diferentes tendencias de uso de analgésicos en pacientes hospitalizados, siendo los más utilizados el acetaminofén y los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINE). Se debe seguir investigando en este tema, para tener mayor evidencia que permita generar lineamientos para un adecuado alivio del dolor.Justification. Pain has a high prevalence in the general population, being higher in inpatient, with figures close to 80%. Pain management is not always suitable due to several factors, one of the most important the lack of knowledge in the management of analgesics. One of the first measures of improving care to reduce pain in a hospital should be determine the prevalence of this symptom and analyze the therapeutic approach performed. That is why the aim of this study was to analyze the use of anal-gesics in patients of a fourth-level hospital in Bogotá, Colombia, identify the most commonly used analgesics, range of doses, possible interactions and adverse drugs reactions. Results. The 78.9% of the patients were pain. Analgesics were prescribed in 561 hospitalized patients. The most used were acetaminophen (33.3%) and tram-adol (29.7%). The most common range of duration of analgesic therapy was 1-5 days (81.7%). 37 cases of overdosing and 3 cases of duplicate therapy were identified. 28 cases of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were presented. Discussion. Proper treat-ment of pain plays a vital role in assessing patient satisfaction. There are different trends analgesic use in inpatient, being the most used acetaminophen and nonste-roidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).It should further investigate on this issue to have stronger scientific evidence to dictate a universal application guidelines for proper pain relief

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research