[Evaluation of social distancing measures on the transmissibility of COVID-19 in rural areas. Retrospective logitudinal study of posible cases]. / Evaluación de las medidas de distanciamiento social sobre la transmisibilidad de COVID-19 en el medio rural. Estudio longitudinal retrospectivo de casos posibles.

AIM: To evaluate the social distance effect on the daily frequency of possible SARS-CoV-2 cases in Primary Care, in relation to the predictive model Kermack-McKendrick. METHODS: Longitudinal retrospective study in 2 rural populations of Aragon (13,579h). A time series evaluation with a t-Student analysis was carry on, during the first 70 days of the pandemic. A simple Kermack-McKendrick predictive model was compared with the possible COVID-19 cases. Complementary ANOVA analysis to assess the before-after number of daily cases, follow-up days and days from symptoms onset to first contact with Primary Health Care. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-nine cases were detected (53.4% women; 70.7% under 60). Primary Care followed 95.3% of cases. The number of cases during the first social distancing strategies was higher in comparison with the model (P=.004, P=.006 and P=.004) with a media of decreases of 6.7 possible cases by series. In relation to the lockdown period the model and cases are close (P=.608 and P=.093), with an average decrease of 1.8 cases per series. During post-containment, the number of cases per day (P<.001) and days of follow-up (P<.001) increased. CONCLUSIONS: Social distancing and containment measures were effective in reducing the number of possible COVID-19 cases in rural areas. Primary Care followed most of the cases.

[Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated in primary care]. / Prevalencia de enfermedad renal crónica en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 atendidos en atención primaria.

INTRODUCTION: The frequency and clinical impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in type 2 diabetes patients (DM2) and the benefits of early intervention highlights the need for close collaboration in detection and management between Nephrology and Primary Health Care. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of CKD in DM2 patients controlled by primary care and evaluate the need to early referral of CKD DM2 patients to renal specialists. STUDY POPULATION: patients older than 18 years of age, with analysis made for any reason in the 16 Health Centers of Health Sector Alcañiz (84,340 inhabitants)during 2008. VARIABLES: age, sex, serum creatinine,urine albumin/creatinine ratio, glycated hemoglobin,potassium and hemoglobin. We calculated the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGF) by the MDRD formula. Were viewed the Consensus Document S.E.N.-SEMFyC ERC 2008 criteria for referral to renal specialists. RESULTS: Of the 16,814 patients enrolled, 3,466 (20.6%) had DM2. In DM2 patients, the prevalence of CKD was 34.6% (IC 95%, 33-36.2). eGF <60 ml/min/m2 was recorded in 25.2% of DM2 patients. In this subgroup the prevalence of albuminuria was 31.7%. Met criteria for referral to renal specialists 104 (3%) DM2 patients and 132 (1%) non diabetic patients(p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DM2 in the Health Centers is high, with frequent presence of CKD and albuminuria. An important percentage of patients meets the referral S.E.N.-SEMFyC criteria. The collaboration with primary care is essential in early detection and monitoring of these patients, and common primary care and nephrology protocols are need.Key words: Chronic kidney disease. Diabetes

Undiagnosed kidney disease in hospitalised patients: an opportunity for improvement.

OBJECTIVES: In hospitalised patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with a high risk of morbidity, mortality and drug toxicity. We identified care improvement opportunities in hospitalised patients with kidney disease in a regional hospital. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Clinical audit: 200 patients hospitalised for any reason in Alcañiz Hospital (Spain) were randomly selected. The data sources were laboratory data, clinical history and discharge reports. RIFLE criteria were applied to define kidney function deterioration. As process quality indicators we used: 1) percentage of hospitalised patients with at least one determination of kidney function during admission. 2) percentage of patients who met criteria for CKD and/or kidney function deterioration and who had this diagnosis recorded in clinical progress reports. 3) percentage of patients who met criteria for CKD and/or kidney function deterioration and who had this diagnosis recorded in the discharge report. RESULTS: Mean age was 71.1 (17) years, 42% women, 63% admitted to medical areas and 37% to surgical areas. Some 194 patients had a kidney function determination at admission; however during their stay kidney function was not monitored in 54 patients (27%), especially in surgical areas. CKD diagnosis by analyses prior to admission was available for 50 patients (25%); however this diagnosis figures in the clinical history in 14 of them (28%), and in the discharge report in 17 (34%). Kidney function deterioration was detected in 68 of the 146 patients who had kidney function monitoring during hospitalisation (46.5%). This information was contained in the clinical history in only 50% of cases and in the discharge report in 33.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CKD prior to admission and deterioration of kidney function during hospitalisation are high. Often these diagnoses are not included in clinical progress reports or in the discharge report, reflecting poor condition awareness on the part of our colleagues. Implementation of a clinical protocol and its diffusion throughout the hospital may be important tools to achieving more efficient and consistent management of these conditions.