Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Emerg Med J ; 41(4): 210-217, 2024 Mar 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38365437

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits can reflect clinical deterioration or unmet need from the original visit. We determined the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the ED for COVID-19-related revisits. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data for all adult patients visiting 47 Canadian EDs with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2022. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the characteristics associated with having a no return visit (SV=single visit group) versus at least one return visit (MV=return visit group) after being discharged alive at the first ED visit. RESULTS: 39 809 patients with COVID-19 had 44 862 COVID-19-related ED visits: 35 468 patients (89%) had one visit (SV group) and 4341 (11%) returned to the ED (MV group) within 30 days (mean 2.2, SD=0.5 ED visit). 40% of SV patients and 16% of MV patients were admitted at their first visit, and 41% of MV patients not admitted at their first ED visit were admitted on their second visit. In the MV group, the median time to return was 4 days, 49% returned within 72 hours. In multivariable modelling, a repeat visit was associated with a variety of factors including older age (OR=1.25 per 10 years, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.28)), pregnancy (1.86 (1.46 to 2.36)) and presence of comorbidities (eg, 1.72 (1.40 to 2.10) for cancer, 2.01 (1.52 to 2.66) for obesity, 2.18 (1.42 to 3.36) for organ transplant), current/prior substance use, higher temperature or WHO severe disease (1.41 (1.29 to 1.54)). Return was less likely for females (0.82 (0.77 to 0.88)) and those boosted or fully vaccinated (0.48 (0.34 to 0.70)). CONCLUSIONS: Return ED visits by patients with COVID-19 within 30 days were common during the first two pandemic years and were associated with multiple factors, many of which reflect known risk for worse outcomes. Future studies should assess reasons for revisit and opportunities to improve ED care and reduce resource use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702945.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Readmissão do Paciente , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Canadá/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Organização Mundial da Saúde
2.
PLoS One ; 19(4): e0296518, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38635744

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Pain affects all children, and in hospitals across North America, this pain is often undertreated. Children who visit the emergency department (ED) experience similar undertreatment, and they will often experience a painful procedure as part of their diagnostic journey. Further, children and their caregivers who experience social injustices through marginalization are more likely to experience healthcare disparities in their pain management. Still, most of our knowledge about children's pain management comes from research focused on well-educated, white children and caregivers from a middle- or upper-class background. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, map, and describe existing research on (a) how aspects of marginalization are documented in randomized controlled trials related to children's pain and (b) to understand the pain treatment and experiences of marginalized children and their caregivers in the ED setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews using the Participant, Concept, Context (PCC) framework and key terms related to children, youth, pain, ED, and aspects of marginalization. We will search Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Trials, iPortal, and Native Health Database for articles published in the last 10 years to identify records that meet our inclusion criteria. We will screen articles in a two-step process using two reviewers during the abstract and full-text screening stages. Data will be extracted using Covidence for data management and we will use a narrative approach to synthesize the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated in academic manuscripts, at academic conferences, and with partners and knowledge users including funders of pain research and healthcare professionals. Results of this scoping review will inform subsequent quantitative and qualitative studies regarding pain experiences and treatment of marginalized children in the ED.


Assuntos
Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Manejo da Dor , Adolescente , Criança , Humanos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Dor , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Projetos de Pesquisa , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Marginalização Social
3.
Acad Emerg Med ; 2024 Jul 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39054590

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Disparities in health outcomes, including increased chronic disease prevalence and decreased life expectancy for Indigenous people, have been shown across settings affected by white settler colonialism including Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Emergency departments (EDs) represent a unique setting in which urgent patient need and provider strain interact to amplify inequities within society. The aim of this scoping review was to map the ED-based interventions aimed at improving equity in care for Indigenous patients in EDs. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted using the procedures outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and guidance on conducting scoping reviews from the Joanna Briggs Institute. A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and EMBASE was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 3636 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 32 were screened in full-text review and nine articles describing seven interventions were included in this review. Three intervention approaches were identified: the introduction of novel clinical roles, implementation of chronic disease screening programs in EDs, and systems/organizational-level interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few interventions for improving equity in care were identified. We found that a minority of interventions are aimed at creating organizational-level change and suggest that future interventions could benefit from targeting system-level changes as opposed to or in addition to incorporating new roles in EDs.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA