RESUMO
Objetivos: Conocer la situación actual en España, tanto a nivel del Ministerio de Sanidad como de las comunidades autónomas, respecto a las políticas sobre seguridad del paciente y lesiones por presión a disposición de los profesionales sanitarios y de los pacientes, publicadas en páginas web institucionales. Metodología: Revisión sistemática de las páginas web, tanto del Ministerio de Sanidad como de las diferentes consejerías de sanidad de las comunidades autónomas de España. Resultados: En todas las comunidades autónomas, excepto en una, se hace referencia a las lesiones por presión como un problema de seguridad del paciente. En los planes desarrollados o adaptadospor la comunidad autónoma en materia de seguridad del paciente son pocas las comunidades que en sus guías y protocolos hacen referencia a indicadores específicos sobre lesiones por presión. Tanto en la estrategia del Ministerio de Sanidad como en la mayoría de estrategias de cada comunidad autónoma, se involucra a pacientes y familiares en la seguridad del paciente. Todas las comunidades autónomas tienen sistemas de notificación de eventos adversos. Conclusiones: Se observa una clara declaración de intenciones por parte de los responsables de calidad y de seguridad del paciente, pero sin la existencia de protocolosespecíficos, actualizados y adaptados a los contextos en los que se desarrollan, y sin unos indicadores que permitan medir los resultados (Au)
Objectives: To ascertain the current situation in Spain, both at the level of the Ministry of Health and the autonomous communities, with regard to the policies on patient safety and pressure injuries available to healthcare professionals and patients published on institutional websites. Methodology: Systematic Review of the websites of both the Ministry of Health and the different departments of health of the autonomous communities of Spain. Results: In all the Autonomous Communities, except one, reference is made to pressure injuries as a patient safety problem. In the plans developed or adapted by the Autonomous Community in the field of patient safety, few communities refer to specific indicators on pressure injuries in their guidelines and protocols. Both the strategy of the Ministry of Health and the majority of the strategies of each autonomous community involve patients and relatives in patient safety. All autonomous communities have adverse event reporting systems. Conclusions:There is a clear declaration of intentions on the part of those responsible for quality and patient safety, but without the existence of specific protocols, updated and adapted to the contexts in which they are developed, and without indicators which allow the results to be measured (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Política Informada por Evidências , Política de Saúde , Lesão por Pressão , Portais do Paciente , Acesso à Internet , Segurança do Paciente , EspanhaRESUMO
Introducción: la Pediatría es una especialidad médica que se desarrolla en Atención Primaria y hospitalaria. Saber cómo se exponen de manera oficial los resultados de la actividad asistencial de esta especialidad puede ser el primer paso para comparar los mismos y establecer un clima de transparencia y confianza en el sistema, así como para establecer y priorizar acciones de mejora. Material y métodos: estudio observacional descriptivo. Se localizaron sitios web institucionales (Ministerio de Sanidad, consejerías de sanidad). Se analizó la información de la actividad pediátrica, su accesibilidad, nivel de agregación, actualización, formato y visión de género y edad. Se valoró la concordancia interobservadores. Resultados: 17 instituciones aportaron indicadores. Los más utilizados fueron: consultas atendidas, presión asistencial y frecuentación. El acceso a la información fue libre, complejo y actualizado a dos años (2019). Los datos estaban en su mayoría desagregados (15) y expuestos en formato PDF. N.º de indicadores: entre 1 y 38 (media, 9). Solo cuatro regiones mostraron una visión de género y de edad. Índice de acuerdo Kappa (κ): 0,89. Conclusiones: la información ofrecida por las instituciones sanitarias relacionada con los indicadores y resultados de actividad pediátrica es heterogénea. Para ganar transparencia y confianza, y para mejorar la comparación entre organizaciones, su obtención debería ser más sencilla, homogénea y clara (AU)
Introduction: paediatrics is a medical specialty that unfolds in the primary care and hospital settings. Knowing how the outcomes of paediatric practice are officially reported may be the first step to compare them and establish a culture of transparency and trust in the system, and to establish and prioritise improvement actions.Material and methods: descriptive observational study. We identified institutional websites (Ministry of Health, regional health authorities) and analysed the information on paediatric care delivery, its accessibility, level of aggregation, recency, formatting and analysis of sex and age. We assessed inter-observer agreement.Results: 17 institutions provided information on indicators. The most used were the visits managed, caseloads and frequency of health care utilization. The information is free, difficult to access, and updated within the past 2 years (2019). Most of the data were disaggregated (15) and in PDF format. The number of indicators ranged from 1 to 38 (mean, 9). Only 4 regions presented information based on sex and age. We found a Cohen kappa coefficient (κ) of 0.89.Conclusions: the information on health care indicators and outcomes of paediatric care provided by healthcare institutions is heterogeneous. To gain transparency and trust, and to facilitate the comparison between organizations, it should be easier to obtain, homogeneous and clearer. (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Atenção Primária à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Pediatria , Portais do Paciente , Acesso à Internet , Registros , Variações Dependentes do ObservadorRESUMO
Describimos el papel de la atención primaria (AP) en 12 países europeos con relación a la COVID-19. No existe información oficial a nivel europeo sobre la actividad de AP. Los hallazgos fueron: Todos los países informaron mediante web y línea telefónica OVID-19 a sus ciudadanos. El rastreo se realizó a través de Salud Pública mayoritariamente, salvo España, Irlanda y Portugal. La tarea de vigilancia epidemiológica se ha solapado con la asistencial sobrecargando la AP. Las pruebas de detección de infección aguda (PDIA) se realizaron en AP de forma exclusiva en España. En el resto se derivaron a laboratorios externos. El seguimiento de pacientes ha sido realizado por AP, mayoritariamente no presencial. La cobertura sanitaria a población vulnerable y a residencias de mayores se ha regulado en todos los países. Es necesario un plan estratégico para AP en Europa que dé respuesta a los retos planteados.(AU)
We describe the role of primary care (PC) in 12 European countries in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no official information at European level on the activity of PC. The findings were: All countries provided COVID-19 information through telephone lines and websites to their citizens. Contact tracing was mainly carried out by Public Health except for Ireland, Portugal and Spain. The epidemiological surveillance task has overlapped with the PC assistance. Active Infection Diagnostic Tests (AIDT) were performed in PC exclusively in Spain. The other countries performed them in external laboratories. Patients were followed-up in PC mostly by remote assessment. Health coverage for vulnerable populations and nursing homes has been regulated in all countries. There is a need for a strategic plan for PC in Europe that responds to the challenges posed.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Pandemias , Coronavírus Relacionado à Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Meios de Comunicação , Tecnologia da Informação , Comunicação em Saúde , Diagnóstico , Portais do Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Espanha , Alemanha , Itália , França , Prevenção de Doenças , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administraçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study is to examine the quality of the information available for patients online with regards to the apicoectomy surgical procedure, both on general and critically selected websites. The hypothesis is that general websites has less quality than other that have been pre-selected. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search for the English term "apicoectomy" was performed online. The first 100 websites that appeared in both Google and Yahoo were analysed. Seven validated instruments were used for these two dimensions: quality (DISCERN, JAMA and EQIP), and readability (FRES, Fog Scale, FKRGL and SMOG). RESULTS: A total of 21 websites (10.5%) were selected. The readability of the websites in both groups was difficult or very difficult. With regards to the quality of the websites, the DISCERN instrument indicated an average value of 2.28 [2.14-2.39] for all of the websites, therefore indicating very low quality with serious defects; however, in the selected websites, the average quality was 3.16 [2.84-3.48], indicating potential, but not serious defects (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences for the FRES values (p = 0.030), with a greater readability in the selected group of websites. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that it is very important for the population to become aware of and learn how to use certain exclusion criteria when selecting medical consultation websites, as in doing so, they will be able to obtain a higher quality of information from these websites
No disponible
Assuntos
Humanos , Apicectomia , Portais do Paciente/normas , Internet , Comportamento de Busca de Informação , Disseminação de Informação , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Compreensão , Portais do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de ReferênciaRESUMO
Introduction: Social media are widely used in the everyday lives of a large part of the world's population. As one of the most popular networks, Facebook can be used for health promotion. Objective: To identify and summarize the characteristics of health promotion pro-grams using social media (Facebook). Methodology: An integrative literature review was conducted using the PI(C)OD methodology (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and design). Data were collected in May and June 2016 in the following databases: Regional Busi-ness News, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, MEDLINE with Full Text, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MedicLatina, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Business Source Complete, and Library, Information Scien-ce & Technology Abstracts. Results: Nine articles were included in this review. Their analysis showed that social media are used for health promotion. Facebook is the most widely used social net-work due to its greater visibility, easier content dissemination, and the possibility for feedback through likes, shares, and comments. Conclusions: Evidence shows that Facebook is an important platform for the imple-mentation of health promotion programs. Social media are great allies for health promotion in nursing
No disponible
Assuntos
Humanos , Promoção da Saúde/métodos , Mídias Sociais , Cuidados de Enfermagem/tendências , Portais do Paciente , Aplicativos MóveisRESUMO
No disponible
Assuntos
Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/epidemiologia , Rede Social , Pesquisa/tendências , Autocuidado/tendências , Webcasts como Assunto/organização & administração , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Mídias Sociais/tendências , Portais do Paciente/tendências , Apoio Social , Acesso à Informação , Comunicação em Saúde/tendênciasRESUMO
Antecedentes y objetivos: para que las decisiones asistenciales sean compartidas por médico y paciente, la información adecuada del paciente es necesaria. Pretendemos conocer la valoración que los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) hacen de la información con la que cuentan, cómo consideran que les informa su médico, cómo usan internet y qué factores predicen esta mejor valoración de la información. Pacientes y métodos: hemos diseñado una encuesta de 39 ítems que se ha distribuido por internet, principalmente a través de una página española en Facebook. Resultados: hemos recibido 420 encuestas contestadas. Los pacientes puntuaron con un 8 sobre 10 la información con la que contaban y el 71% de ellos consideraba que el médico informaba bien o muy bien. Se detectaron deficiencias, como una información escasa en el momento del diagnóstico en el 58%; dudas después de la consulta en el 25%; deficiencia en la información relativa a las complicaciones de la EII, su evolución o aspectos relativos a la dieta; o la no participación del médico o farmacéutico en la recomendación de páginas de internet adecuadas. Los pacientes consideran internet una fuente de información por detrás del médico, de la asociación de pacientes y de otros pacientes. Los factores predictores independientes de la percepción de estar bien informados (puntuación de 8 o más sobre 10) fueron la edad (OR 1,539 [IC 1,047-2,261], p = 0,028), el nivel de estudios (OR 1,544 [IC 1,110-2,147], p = 0,010), el tiempo de evolución de la EII (OR 1,267 [IC 1,003-1,601], p = 0,047), e información buena o muy buena procedente del médico (OR 3,262 [IC 2,425-4,388], p < 0,001). Conclusiones: los pacientes consideran que están bien informados, pero hay aspectos mejorables como son la información dirigida a los pacientes más jóvenes, con un nivel académico menor, cuando el diagnóstico es reciente, en la información relativa a determinados aspectos de la EII que los pacientes consideran que no son suficientemente tratados, y en el asesoramiento por parte de los médicos de páginas web de calidad
Background and aims: patients need information for shared decision making. The aims of the study were to ascertain how patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) felt about the information available and the way that their doctors informed them. In addition, how patients used the internet and factors that predicted a positive information evaluation were also assessed. Method: a 39-item survey was designed that was distributed via the internet, principally using a Spanish Facebook site. Results: four hundred and twenty completed surveys were received. Patients rated the information available with a mean of 8 points (maximum of 10) and 71% felt that their doctor informed them well or very well. Various deficiencies were found such as little information available at the time of diagnosis (58%); doubts after seeing the specialist (70%); insufficient information about IBD complications, disease course and dietary aspects; and a lack of appropriate internet webpage recommendations from specialists or pharmacists. Patients ranked the internet fourth as an information source, followed by their specialist, patient associations and other patients. Independent predictive factors of feeling well informed (≥ 8) included age, OR 1.539 (CI 1.047-2.261), p = 0.028; education, OR 1.544 (CI 1.110-2.147), p = 0,010; IBD evolution time, OR 1.267 (CI 1.003-1,601), p = 0.047; and good or very good information from the specialist, OR 3.262 (CI 2.425-4.388), p < 0.001. Conclusions: patients generally felt that they were well informed. However, there were aspects that needed improvement, such as information for younger patients or a lower education level, the information provided at diagnosis, information about specific or insufficiently covered IBD aspects and suggestions from doctors about high quality websites
