RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) is a respiratory disorder characterized by repeated episodes of partial or complete airway obstruction. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure therapy (CPAP) is effective in improving sleep quality and daytime sleepiness. The aim of the study was to evaluate therapeutic adherence in a sample of patients with OSAS from the Pneumology ward of the "Cardinal Massaia" Hospital in Asti. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 221 patients with OSAS were collected and retrospectively analyzed from January 2019 to December 2021. Ventilation hours during device titration (T1), possible second titration (T2) and one-year control (T3) were considered. The use of the CPAP device equal to or greater than 4 h/night was considered as therapeutic adherence. Age, gender, severity of OSAS, smoking, interface used and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score were considered. RESULTS: The analysis data showed that the percentage of adhesion during T1 was 84%. Only 9% needed T2, with 84% adherence. At T3 the adherence was 86%. Correlation studies showed that only smoking had a positive correlation with adherence, while OSAS severity, gender, ESS score, interface used and age had no statistically significant correlation. CONCLUSION: It was important to understand that OSAS is a disease with prolonged treatment, which affects the life of the person and his family. Therefore, the concept of assistance network was born, which sees the healthcare operators, the person and his family as the main actors involved in a care process.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic a proactive rounding (PR) team was introduced in our clinical practice in order to recognize the clinical deterioration of the patient as soon as possible. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the PR team on the rapid response system (RRS) workload with particular regard to the activity carried out, the mode of intervention, and the outcome of patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the first period before the activation of the PR team (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and the second period after its activation (March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 406 inpatient RRS activations were collected. The medical emergency team (MET) dose was 13 and 12.2 activations/1000 admitted patients per year while the incidence of unexpected cardiac arrests was 3.8 and 2.6 events/1000 admitted patients per year (p=0.10). MET response time was longer in the second period (3.5±1.6 minutes vs 4.5±2.6 minutes p<0.01). We recorded more RRS activations for medical patients than surgical ones; MET was activated more frequently by physicians than nurses and for less severe criteria. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit had lower Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The PR team introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the RRS workload. In addition, it allowed an earlier activation of the MET, especially by physicians.