Reglas de consistencia entre modelos de requisitos de Un-Método

Software must have an engineering approach that enables to ensure its usefulness; this means that it must satisfy its stakeholder’s needs. In the Systems School of Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Un-Método for software development has been created; Un-Método is a mix of other methods such as Rup and Cdm, and new methods. In this paper we define a set of rules applied to Un-Método consistency, because this method doesn’t show clear structured consistency management. Finally, we show the application of rules in a practical case.El software debe poseer un enfoque ingenieril que permita asegurar su utilidad, lo cual significa que debe satisfacer las necesidades de sus interesados. En la Escuela de Sistemas de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, se ha creado Un-Método para el desarrollo de software, que toma elementos de otros métodos como Rup y Cdm, e incorpora otros nuevos. Entre los diferentes artefactos incluidos en Un-Método, aún no se realiza un manejo claramente estructurado de la consistencia, por lo cual en este artículo se define un conjunto de reglas que aplican para la consistencia en Un-Método y se muestra su aplicación mediante un caso práctico

Reglas de consistencia entre modelos de requisitos de Un-Método

El software debe poseer un enfoque ingenieril que permita asegurar su utilidad, lo cual significa que debe satisfacer las necesidades de sus interesados. En la Escuela de Sistemas de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, se ha creado Un-Método para el desarrollo de software, que toma elementos de otros métodos como Rup y Cdm, e incorpora otros nuevos. Entre los diferentes artefactos incluidos en Un-Método, aún no se realiza un manejo claramente estructurado de la consistencia, por lo cual en este artículo se define un conjunto de reglas que aplican para la consistencia en Un-Método y se muestra su aplicación mediante un caso práctico

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Bacterial etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent hospitalized patients and appropriateness of empirical treatment recommendations: an international point-prevalence study

An accurate knowledge of the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is key for selecting appropriate antimicrobial treatments. Very few etiological studies assessed the appropriateness of empiric guideline recommendations at a multinational level. This study aims at the following: (i) describing the bacterial etiologic distribution of CAP and (ii) assessing the appropriateness of the empirical treatment recommendations by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CAP in light of the bacterial pathogens diagnosed as causative agents of CAP. Secondary analysis of the GLIMP, a point-prevalence international study which enrolled adults hospitalized with CAP in 2015. The analysis was limited to immunocompetent patients tested for bacterial CAP agents within 24 h of admission. The CAP CPGs evaluated included the following: the 2007 and 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA), the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and selected country-specific CPGs. Among 2564 patients enrolled, 35.3% had an identifiable pathogen. Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.2%) was the most frequently identified pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.4%). CPGs appropriately recommend covering more than 90% of all the potential pathogens causing CAP, with the exception of patients enrolled from Germany, Pakistan, and Croatia. The 2019 ATS/IDSA CPGs appropriately recommend covering 93.6% of the cases compared with 90.3% of the ERS CPGs (p < 0.01). S. pneumoniae remains the most common pathogen in patients hospitalized with CAP. Multinational CPG recommendations for patients with CAP seem to appropriately cover the most common pathogens and should be strongly encouraged for the management of CAP patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

International prevalence and risk factors evaluation for drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia

Objective: Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most frequent bacterial pathogen isolated in subjects with Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) worldwide. Limited data are available regarding the current global burden and risk factors associated with drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae (DRSP) in CAP subjects. We assessed the multinational prevalence and risk factors for DRSP-CAP in a multinational point-prevalence study. Design: The prevalence of DRSP-CAP was assessed by identification of DRSP in blood or respiratory samples among adults hospitalized with CAP in 54 countries. Prevalence and risk factors were compared among subjects that had microbiological testing and antibiotic susceptibility data. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors independently associated with DRSP-CAP. Results: 3,193 subjects were included in the study. The global prevalence of DRSP-CAP was 1.3% and continental prevalence rates were 7.0% in Africa, 1.2% in Asia, and 1.0% in South America, Europe, and North America, respectively. Macrolide resistance was most frequently identified in subjects with DRSP-CAP (0.6%) followed by penicillin resistance (0.5%). Subjects in Africa were more likely to have DRSP-CAP (OR: 7.6; 95% CI: 3.34-15.35, p < 0.001) when compared to centres representing other continents. Conclusions: This multinational point-prevalence study found a low global prevalence of DRSP-CAP that may impact guideline development and antimicrobial policies. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association

Prevalence and Etiology of Community-acquired Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients

BACKGROUND: The correct management of immunocompromised patients with pneumonia is debated. We evaluated the prevalence, risk factors, and characteristics of immunocompromised patients coming from the community with pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an international, multicenter study enrolling adult patients coming from the community with pneumonia and hospitalized in 222 hospitals in 54 countries worldwide. Risk factors for immunocompromise included AIDS, aplastic anemia, asplenia, hematological cancer, chemotherapy, neutropenia, biological drug use, lung transplantation, chronic steroid use, and solid tumor. RESULTS: At least 1 risk factor for immunocompromise was recorded in 18% of the 3702 patients enrolled. The prevalences of risk factors significantly differed across continents and countries, with chronic steroid use (45%), hematological cancer (25%), and chemotherapy (22%) the most common. Among immunocompromised patients, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens were the most frequently identified, and prevalences did not differ from those in immunocompetent patients. Risk factors for immunocompromise were independently associated with neither Pseudomonas aeruginosa nor non-community-acquired bacteria. Specific risk factors were independently associated with fungal infections (odds ratio for AIDS and hematological cancer, 15.10 and 4.65, respectively; both P = .001), mycobacterial infections (AIDS; P = .006), and viral infections other than influenza (hematological cancer, 5.49; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be considered by clinicians in prescribing empiric antibiotic therapy for CAP in immunocompromised patients. Patients with AIDS and hematological cancer admitted with CAP may have higher prevalences of fungi, mycobacteria, and noninfluenza viruses

Prevalence and risk factors for Enterobacteriaceae in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Background and objective Enterobacteriaceae (EB) spp. family is known to include potentially multidrug-resistant (MDR) microorganisms, and remains as an important cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and specific risk factors associated with EB and MDR-EB in a cohort of hospitalized adults with CAP. Methods We performed a multinational, point-prevalence study of adult patients hospitalized with CAP. MDR-EB was defined when >= 3 antimicrobial classes were identified as non-susceptible. Risk factors assessment was also performed for patients with EB and MDR-EB infection. Results Of the 3193 patients enrolled with CAP, 197 (6%) had a positive culture with EB. Fifty-one percent (n = 100) of EB were resistant to at least one antibiotic and 19% (n = 38) had MDR-EB. The most commonly EB identified were Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 111, 56%) and Escherichia coli (n = 56, 28%). The risk factors that were independently associated with EB CAP were male gender, severe CAP, underweight (body mass index (BMI) < 18.5) and prior extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) infection. Additionally, prior ESBL infection, being underweight, cardiovascular diseases and hospitalization in the last 12 months were independently associated with MDR-EB CAP. Conclusion This study of adults hospitalized with CAP found a prevalence of EB of 6% and MDR-EB of 1.2%, respectively. The presence of specific risk factors, such as prior ESBL infection and being underweight, should raise the clinical suspicion for EB and MDR-EB in patients hospitalized with CAP

Aspiration risk factors, microbiology, and empiric antibiotics for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Background: Aspiration community-acquired pneumonia (ACAP) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with aspiration risk factors (AspRFs) are infections associated with anaerobes, but limited evidence suggests their pathogenic role. Research question: What are the aspiration risk factors, microbiology patterns, and empiric anti-anaerobic use in patients hospitalized with CAP? Study design and methods: This is a secondary analysis of GLIMP, an international, multicenter, point-prevalence study of adults hospitalized with CAP. Patients were stratified into three groups: (1) ACAP, (2) CAP/AspRF+ (CAP with AspRF), and (3) CAP/AspRF- (CAP without AspRF). Data on demographics, comorbidities, microbiological results, and anti-anaerobic antibiotics were analyzed in all groups. Patients were further stratified in severe and nonsevere CAP groups. Results: We enrolled 2,606 patients with CAP, of which 193 (7.4%) had ACAP. Risk factors independently associated with ACAP were male, bedridden, underweight, a nursing home resident, and having a history of stroke, dementia, mental illness, and enteral tube feeding. Among non-ACAP patients, 1,709 (70.8%) had CAP/AspRF+ and 704 (29.2%) had CAP/AspRF-. Microbiology patterns including anaerobes were similar between CAP/AspRF-, CAP/AspRF+ and ACAP (0.0% vs 1.03% vs 1.64%). Patients with severe ACAP had higher rates of total gram-negative bacteria (64.3% vs 44.3% vs 33.3%, P = .021) and lower rates of total gram-positive bacteria (7.1% vs 38.1% vs 50.0%, P 50% in all groups) independent of AspRFs or ACAP received specific or broad-spectrum anti-anaerobic coverage antibiotics. Interpretation: Hospitalized patients with ACAP or CAP/AspRF+ had similar anaerobic flora compared with patients without aspiration risk factors. Gram-negative bacteria were more prevalent in patients with severe ACAP. Despite having similar microbiological flora between groups, a large proportion of CAP patients received anti-anaerobic antibiotic coverage