7 research outputs found
Novedades en el calendario de vacunas de Argentina. Segunda parte: virus del papiloma humano
A fines de 2023 la autoridad sanitaria de Argentina realizó modificaciones en el Calendario Nacional obligatorio, que serán implementadas en forma progresiva durante 2024. Este artículo está enfocado en la reducción del esquema contra el virus del papiloma humano
Novedades en el calendario de vacunas de Argentina. Primera parte: virus sincicial respiratorio
A fines de 2023 la autoridad sanitaria de Argentina realizó modificaciones en el Calendario Nacional obligatorio, que serán implementadas en forma progresiva durante 2024. Este artículo está enfocado en la introducción de la vacuna contra el virus respiratorio en las personas embarazadas que cursan las semanas 32 a 36 de gestación durante la temporada de circulación del virus
Ventriculo-peritoneal shunting devices for hydrocephalus
Background: Hydrocephalus is a common neurological disorder, caused by a progressive accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within the intracranial space that can lead to increased intracranial pressure, enlargement of the ventricles (ventriculomegaly) and, consequently, to brain damage. Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt systems are the mainstay therapy for this condition, however there are different types of shunt systems. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of conventional and complex shunt devices for CSF diversion in people with hydrocephalus. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2020 Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February 2020); Embase (Elsevier) (1974 to February 2020); Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (1980 to February 2020); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials of different types of ventriculo-peritoneal shunting devices for people with hydrocephalus. Primary outcomes included: treatment failure, adverse events and mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors screened studies for selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Due to the scarcity of data, we performed a Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) incorporating GRADE for the quality of the evidence. Main results: We included six studies with 962 participants assessing the effects of standard valves compared to anti-syphon valves, other types of standard valves, self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves and external differential programmable pressure valves. All included studies started in a hospital setting and offered ambulatory follow-up. Most studies were conducted in infants or children with hydrocephalus from diverse causes. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was low to very low. 1. Standard valve versus anti-syphon valve. Three studies with 296 randomised participants were included under this comparison. We are uncertain about the incidence of treatment failure in participants with standard valve and anti-syphon valves (very low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves (range 0 to 1.9%) and anti-syphon valves (range 0 to 2.9%) (low certainty of the evidence). Mortality may be similar in those with standard valves (0%) and anti-syphon valves (0.9%) (RD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.02% to 0.03%, low certainty of the evidence). Ventricular size and head circumference may be similar in those with standard valves and anti-syphon valves (low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported the quality of life of participants. 2. Comparison between different types of standard valves. Two studies with 174 randomised participants were included under this comparison. We are uncertain about the incidence of treatment failure in participants with different types of standard valves (early postoperative period: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.27; at 12 months follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92, very low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported adverse events beyond those included under "treatment failure". We are uncertain about the effects of different types of standard valves on mortality (range 2% to 17%, very low certainty of the evidence). The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference. 3. Standard valve versus self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valve. One study with 229 randomised participants addressed this comparison. The incidence of treatment failure may be similar in those with standard valves (42.98%) and self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves (39.13%) (low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves (range 0 to 1.9%) and those with self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves (range 0 to 7.2%) (low certainty of the evidence). The included study reported no deaths in either group in the postoperative period. Beyond the early postoperative period, the authors stated that nine patients died (no disaggregated data by each type of intervention was available, low certainty of the evidence). The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference. 4. External differential programmable pressure valve versus non-programmable valve. One study with 377 randomised participants addressed this comparison. The incidence of treatment failure may be similar in those with programmable valves (52%) and non-programmable valves (52%) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.24, low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with programmable valves (6.19%) and non-programmable valves (6.01%) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.15, low certainty of the evidence). The included study did not report the effect of these interventions on mortality, quality of life or head circumference. Ventricular size reduction may be similar in those with programmable valves and non-programmable valves (low certainty of the evidence). Authors' conclusions: Standard shunt valves for hydrocephalus compared to anti-syphon or self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves may cause little to no difference on the main outcomes of this review, however we are very uncertain due to the low to very low certainty of evidence. Similarly, different types of standard valves and external differential programmable pressure valves versus non-programmable valves may be associated with similar outcomes. Nevertheless, this review did not include valves with the latest technology, for which we need high-quality randomised controlled trials focusing on patient-important outcomes including costs.Fil: Garegnani, Luis. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Franco, Juan Victor Ariel. Hospital Italiano; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Garrote, Virginia. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Vietto, Valeria. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Portillo Medina, Santiago Adalberto. Hospital Italiano; Argentin
Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings
Adulto; Errores de medicación; FarmacéuticosAdult; Medication errors; PharmacistsAdult; Errors de medicació; FarmacèuticsBackground: Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death.
Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings
Sobreuso de mamografía para rastreo en un hospital académico de Buenos Aires
INTRODUCCIÓN: El rastreo de cáncer de mama en la población general asintomática no está recomendado en mujeres menores de 40 años y es controvertido en las de 40 a 49 años. El uso inadecuado de mamografía con fines de rastreo (sobreuso) y su consecuencia, el sobrediagnóstico, pueden conducir a tratamientos agresivos.OBJETIVO: Reportar la proporción de mamografías inapropiadamente realizadas en mujeres menores de 50 años afiliadas a un plan de salud de un proveedor de medicina prepaga.MÉTODOS: Se efectuó un estudio observacional de corte transversal. Se identificó a las mujeres de 18-39 y de 40-49 años afiliadas al plan de salud del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires que se habían realizado al menos una mamografía en 2012. Se revisaron las historias clínicas de 200 pacientes en cada grupo de edad para determinar si la mamografía había sido solicitada para rastreo de cáncer de mama. RESULTADOS: Durante 2012, 1533 mujeres de 18-39 años se realizaron una mamografía. En 96 de las 200 historias revisadas, esta prueba había sido solicitada con fines de rastreo (48%; IC 95%: 40,9-55,2%). Entre las mujeres de 40-49 años, 4432 tenían una mamografía efectuada ese año. Se revisaron 199 historias clínicas; en 105 casos, el estudio había sido solicitado con fines de rastreo (52,8%; IC 95%: 45,6-59,9%). No se realizó ningún diagnóstico de cáncer de mama como consecuencia de esta estrategia de rastreo.CONCLUSIONES: La alta proporción de sobreuso de mamografía para rastreo es especialmente preocupante entre las mujeres más jóvenes y revela la dificultad que los médicos pueden tener para adoptar las guías de práctica clínica más actualizadas.INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer screening in the general asymptomatic population is not recommended in women younger than 40 years old, and it is controversial among women aged 40 to 49 years. Overuse of screening mammography and its consequence, overdiagnosis, can lead to aggressive treatments. OBJECTIVE: To report the proportion of mammograms that were performed for breast cancer screening among women younger than 50 years old enrolled in a private Health Insurance Plan in Buenos Aires, Argentina. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was performed. Among women aged 18 to 39 and 40 to 49 years old enrolled in a private health plan (Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires), those with a mammogram conducted in 2012 were identified. Of them, 200 in each age group were randomly selected. Their medical charts were reviewed to determine if the mammography had been performed for breast cancer screening purposes. RESULTS: During 2012, 1533 women aged 18 to 39 years old had a mammogram conducted. Of them, 200 charts were reviewed, 96 of which were determined to have a screening mammography (overuse proportion: 48%; 95% CI: 40.9-55.2%). Among women aged 40 to 49, 4 432 had a mammography performed during 2012. The charts of 199 of these women were reviewed. The mammogram had been conducted for screening purposes in 105 cases (overuse proportion: 52.8%; 95% CI: 45.6-59.9%). There was no diagnosis of breast cancer as a result of these screening mammograms. CONCLUSIONS: This high overuse of screening mammography is particularly concerning among the younger women and highlights the difficulty physicians may have to adopt the most updated guidelines.Fil: Salgado, Maria Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Kopitowski, Karin Silvana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Barani, Mariela. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Vietto, Valeria. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Terrasa, Sergio Adrian. Hospital Italiano; Argentin
Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings
Background: Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments. Data collection and analysis: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible. Main results: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation –the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking– was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation. Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131). Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724). Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311). Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications. Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours. Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors. Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system. Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775). Authors' conclusions: Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies –including those that involve patients– should also be evaluated.Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Fernandez Nievas, Simon E. No especifíca;Fil: Seijo, Mariana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Inmunología, Genética y Metabolismo. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Inmunología, Genética y Metabolismo; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Rodriguez, Maria Belén. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Vietto, Valeria. Instituto Universidad Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: García Perdomo, Herney A.. Universidad del Valle; ColombiaFil: Virgilio, Sacha. No especifíca;Fil: Fajreldines, Ana V.. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Tost, Josep. No especifíca;Fil: Rose, Christopher J.. No especifíca;Fil: Garcia Elorrio, Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentin