16 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
How actionable are staff behaviours specified in policy documents? A document analysis of protocols for managing deteriorating patients
BACKGROUND: To optimise care of deteriorating patients, healthcare organisations have implemented rapid response systems including an "afferent" and "efferent" limb. Afferent limb behaviours include monitoring vital signs and escalating care. To strengthen afferent limb behaviour and reduce adverse patient outcomes, the National Early Warning Score was implemented in the UK. There are no published reports of how National Early Warning Score guidance has translated into trust-level deteriorating patient policy and whether these documents provide clear, actionable statements guiding staff.
AIM: To identify how deteriorating patient policy documents provide "actionable" behavioural instruction for staff, responsible for actioning the afferent limb of the rapid response system.
DESIGN: A structured content analysis of a national guideline and local policies using a behaviour specification framework.
METHODS: Local deteriorating patient policies were obtained. Statements of behaviour were extracted from policies; coded using a behaviour specification framework: Target, Action, Context, Timing and Actor and scored for specificity (1 = present, nonspecific; 2 = present, specific). Frequencies and proportions of statements containing elements of the Target, Action, Context, Timing and Actor framework were summarised descriptively. Reporting was guided by the COREQ checklist.
RESULTS: There were more statements related to monitoring than escalation behaviour (65% vs 35%). Despite high levels of clear specification of the action (94%) and the target of the behaviour (74%), context, timing and actor were poorly specified (37%, 37% and 33%).
CONCLUSION: Delay in escalating deteriorating patients is associated with adverse outcomes. Some delay could be addressed by writing local protocols with greater behavioural specificity, to facilitate actionability.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Numerous clinical staff are required for an effective response to patient deterioration. To mitigate role confusion, local policy writers should provide clear specification of the actor. As the behaviours are time-sensitive, clear specification of the time frame may increase actionability of policy statements for clinical staff
Implante transcateter valve‐in‐valve para disfunção de biopróteses cirúrgicas aórticas
RESUMOIntroduçãoEstudos recentes têm demonstrado a eficácia do implante transcateter valve‐in‐valve para o tratamento de disfunção de biopróteses em pacientes de alto risco cirúrgico. Apresentamos nossa experiência inicial com o implante valve‐in‐valve.MétodosCaracterizamos o perfil clínico, ecocardiográfico e do procedimento, e reportamos os resultados de médio prazo de pacientes com disfunção de bioprótese submetidos a implante valve‐in‐valve em posição aórtica.ResultadosIncluímos sete pacientes do sexo masculino, com idade de 72,6 ± 10,0 anos. O escore STS foi 9,6 ± 10,5%, e o EuroSCORE logístico foi 22,7 ± 14,7%. Três pacientes apresentavam dupla disfunção; dois tinham insuficiência; e dois exibiam estenose isolada. A via transfemoral foi utilizada em seis casos, e a transapical, em um caso. Os dispositivos implantados incluíram as próteses Sapien XT (n = 5) e CoreValve (n = 2). O sucesso do procedimento foi obtido em seis (85,7%) casos. Após o procedimento, o gradiente médio reduziu‐se de 38,2 ± 9,6mmHg para 20,9 ± 5,9mmHg, e a área valvar elevou‐se de 1,2 ± 0,4cm2 para 1,5 ± 0,5cm2. Ao final de 1 ano, não ocorreram óbitos e nem outros desfechos adversos significativos; 80% dos pacientes encontravam‐se em classe funcional NYHA I/II. Os gradientes transvalvares e a área valvar permaneceram inalterados nesse período.ConclusõesO procedimento valve‐in‐valve foi eficaz na maioria dos pacientes de alto risco cirúrgico com disfunção de bioprótese. Quando realizado em pacientes bem selecionados, resulta em desfechos clínicos e hemodinâmicos satisfatórios.ABSTRACTBackgroundRecent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of the transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation for the treatment of bioprosthesis dysfunction in high‐risk surgical patients. This study presents the initial experience with valve‐in‐valve implantation.MethodsClinical, echocardiographic, and procedural profiles were characterized, and the mid‐term results of patients with surgical bioprosthesis dysfunction submitted to valve‐in‐valve implantation in the aortic position were reported.ResultsSeven male patients were included, aged 72.6 ± 10.0 years. The STS score was 9,6 ± 10,5%, and the logistic EuroSCORE was 22.7 ± 14.7%. Three patients had combined aortic bioprosthesis failure; two had isolated regurgitation; and two had isolated stenosis. The transfemoral access was used in six cases, and the transapical access in one case. Implanted devices included Sapien XT (n = 5) and CoreValve (n = 2) prostheses. Procedural success was achieved in six (85.7%) cases. After the procedure, the mean gradient decreased from 38.2 ± 9.6mmHg to 20.9 ± 5.9mmHg, and the valve area increased from 1.2 ± 0.4cm2 to 1.5 ± 0.5cm2. After 1 year, there were no deaths and no other significant adverse outcomes; 80% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II. The transvalvular gradients and valve area remained unchanged in this period.ConclusionsThe valve‐in‐valve procedure was effective in most high‐risk surgical patients with bioprosthesis dysfunction. When performed in well‐selected patients, it results in satisfactory clinical and hemodynamic outcomes
In-service training for primary educators in Commonwealth Africa
Bibliography: p. 110-125