Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Emerg Med ; 28(3): 202-209, 2021 Jun 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33105329

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Healthcare personnel working in the emergency department (ED) is at risk of acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-Cov-2). So far, it is unknown if the reported variety in infection rates among healthcare personnel is related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) or other factors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between PPE use and SARS-CoV-2 infections among ED personnel in the Netherlands. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationwide survey, consisting of 42 questions about PPE-usage, ED layout - and workflow and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of permanent ED staff, was sent to members of the Dutch Society of Emergency Physicians. Members were asked to fill out one survey on behalf of the ED of their hospital. The association between PPE use and the infection rate was investigated using univariable and multivariable regression analyses, adjusting for potential confounders. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among permanent ED staff between 1 March and 15 May 2020. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 64 EDs of which 45 responded (70.3%). In total, 164 ED staff workers [5.1 (3.2-7.0)%] tested positive for COVID-19 during the study period compared to 0.087% of the general population. There was significant clustering of infected ED staff in some hospitals (range: 0-23 infection). In 13 hospitals, an FFP2 (filtering facepiece particles >94% aerosol filtration) mask or equivalent and eye protection was worn for all contacts with patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 during the whole study period. The unadjusted staff infection rate was higher in these hospitals [7.3 (3.4-11.1) vs. 4.0 (1.9-6.1)%, absolute difference + 3.3%]. Hospital staff testing policy was identified as a potential confounder of the relation between PPE use and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (collinearity statistic 0.95). After adjusting for hospital testing policy, type of PPE was not associated with incidence of COVID 19 infections among ED staff (P = 0.40). CONCLUSION: In this cross-sectional study, the use of high-level PPE (FFP2 or equivalent and eye protection) by ED personnel during all contacts with patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 does not seem to be associated with a lower infection rate of ED staff compared to lower level PPE use. Attention should be paid to ED layout and social distancing to prevent cross-contamination of ED personnel.


Assuntos
COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Luvas Protetoras/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Humanos , Masculino , Países Baixos , Roupa de Proteção/estatística & dados numéricos , Dispositivos de Proteção Respiratória/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
2.
Eur J Emerg Med ; 26(5): 350-355, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30179895

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, several quality improvement projects have been implemented in emergency departments (EDs) in the Netherlands, one of these being the training and deployment of emergency physicians. In this study we aim to perform a trend analysis of ED quality of care in Dutch hospitals, as measured by the incidence of medical malpractice claims. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study of malpractice claims in five Dutch EDs over the period 1998-2014. Incidence risk ratios were calculated to demonstrate any relation of specific quality improvement initiatives with the primary outcome, defined as the number of claims per 10 000 ED visits per year. RESULTS: During the study period, the cumulative number of ED visits increased significantly from 99 145 in 1998 to 162 490 in 2014 (P < 0.01). In total, 228 of 2 348 417 ED visits (0.97 per 10 000) resulted in a malpractice claim. At the same time, the yearly number of ED claims filed decreased with 0.07 (0.03-0.10) per 10 000 each year. The claim rate was higher in the period before emergency physicians were employed in the ED [1.18 (0.98-1.41) claims per 10 000 visits] compared with the period after they were employed [0.81 (0.67-0.97), incidence risk ratio 0.69 (0.53-0.89), P < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: Even though the number of ED visits increased significantly over the past two decades, the number of malpractice claims filed after an ED visit decreased. Various quality improvement initiatives, including the training and employment of emergency physicians, may have contributed to the observed decrease in claims.


Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/legislação & jurisprudência , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/tendências , Imperícia/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Estudos de Coortes , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/ética , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Imperícia/tendências , Países Baixos , Distribuição de Poisson , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA