Factores de riesgo asociados a estadía hospitalaria prolongada en pacientes adultos / Risk factors associated with prolonged hospital stay in adult patients

Se realizó una investigación de casos y controles de pacientes adultos ingresados en el Hospital Provincial Docente Dr Joaquín Castillo Duany de Santiago de Cuba, durante 5 meses del 2017, con el propósito de estimar el efecto de determinados factores de riesgo como modificadores de la estadía hospitalaria, así como la magnitud del impacto en la potencial reducción del grado de exposición a estos. El grupo de estudio fue conformado por 40 pacientes y el de control por 80. Predominaron las lesiones osteomioarticulares en ambos grupos (con un total de 23,3 por ciento); en tanto, para los casos resultó más frecuente una estadía hospitalaria de 13 días y para los controles fue igual o superior a los 7 días como promedio. Entre los factores de riesgo fueron definidos, con un nivel de confianza de 95 por ciento, la edad superior a los 65 años (OR: 4; IC 95 por ciento: 1,2-17), la ocurrencia de episodios adversos (OR: 26; IC 95 por ciento: 8,1-80,3) y los retrasos en las decisiones médicas (OR: 19; IC 95 por ciento: 4-89). Pudo concluirse que el diseño epidemiológico permitió establecer relaciones de causalidad en la prolongación de la estadía hospitalaria y cuantificar la magnitud de su reducción si se controlan o eliminan los riesgos

An investigation of cases and controls in adult patients admitted at Dr Joaquín Castillo Duany Provincial Hospital from Santiago de Cuba was carried out during 5 months in 2017, with the purpose of estimating the effect of certain risk factors as modifiers of the hospital stay, as well as the magnitude of the impact in the potential reduction of the exposure degree to those factors. The study group was formed by 40 patients and the control group by 80. The osteomioarticular lesions prevailed in both groups (with a total of 23.3 percent); as long as, for the cases it was more frequent a hospital stay of 13 days and for the controls, equal or longer than 7 days as average. Among the risk factors were defined, with a confidence level of 95 percent, the age older than 65 years (OR: 4; IC 95 percent: 1.2-17), the occurrence of adverse episodes (OR: 26; IC 95 percent: 8.1-80.3) and the delays in the medical decisions (OR: 19; IC 95 percent: 4-89). It could be concluded that the epidemiological design allowed to establish causality relationships in the continuity of the hospital stay and to quantify the magnitude of its reduction if risks are controlled or eliminated

Accommodating quality and service improvement research within existing ethical principles.

BACKGROUND: Quality and service improvement (QSI) research employs a broad range of methods to enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. QSI research differs from traditional healthcare research and poses unique ethical questions. Since QSI research aims to generate knowledge to enhance quality improvement efforts, should it be considered research for regulatory purposes? Is review by a research ethics committee required? Should healthcare providers be considered research participants? If participation in QSI research entails no more than minimal risk, is consent required? The lack of consensus on answers to these questions highlights the need for ethical guidance. MAIN BODY: Three distinct approaches to classifying QSI research in accordance with existing ethical principles and regulations can be found in the literature. In the first approach, QSI research is viewed as distinct from other types of healthcare research and does not require regulation. In the second approach, QSI research falls within regulatory guidelines but is exempt from research ethics committee review. In the third approach, QSI research is deemed to be part of the learning healthcare system and, as such, is subject to a different set of ethical principles entirely. In this paper, we critically assess each of these views. CONCLUSION: While none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory, we argue that use of the ethical principles governing research provides the best means of addressing the numerous questions posed by QSI research.

Who Counts? What Counts? Place and the Limits of Perinatal Mortality Measures.

Maternal and neonatal mortality statistics foreground some possible causes of death at the expense of others. Political place (nation, state) and place of birth (hospital, home) are integral to these statistics; respect for women as persons is not. Using case examples from Malawi and the United States, I argue that the focus on place embedded in these indicators can legitimate coercive approaches to childbirth. Qualitative assessments in both cases reveal that respectful care, while not represented in current indicators, is critical for the health of women and newborns. Perinatal outcomes measures thus must be rethought to ensure ethical and safe maternity care. This rethinking will require new questions and new methods.

Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in COPD care in the hospital outpatient setting - A nationwide initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic differences in quality of care have been suggested to contribute to inequality in clinical prognosis of COPD. We examined socioeconomic differences in the quality of COPD outpatient care and the potential of a systematic quality improvement initiative in reducing potential socioeconomic differences. METHODS: A mandatory national quality improvement initiative has since 2008 monitored the quality of COPD care at all national pulmonary specialized outpatient clinics in Denmark using six evidence-based process performance measures. We followed patients aged ≥30 years with a first-ever outpatient contact for COPD during 2008-2012 (N = 23,741). Adjusted year-specific relative risks (RR) of fulfilling all relevant process performance measures was compared according to ethnicity, education, income, employment, and cohabitation using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Quality of care improved following the implementation of the clinical improvement initiative with 11% of COPD patients receiving optimal care in 2008 compared to 57% in 2012. Substantial socioeconomic differences were observed the first year: immigrants (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.82), the unemployed (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.74), disability pensioners (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.87) and patients living alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-0.97) were less likely to receive all relevant care processes, whereas those with highest education (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92-1.63) were more likely to receive these processes. These differences were eliminated during the study period. CONCLUSION: A systematic quality improvement initiative including regular audits, knowledge sharing, and detailed disease-specific recommendations for care improvement may increase the overall quality of care and considerably modify the substantial socioeconomic inequalities in COPD management.

Quality measurement in orthopaedics: the purchasers' view.

While all of medicine is under pressure to increase transparency and accountability, joint replacement subspecialists will face special scrutiny. Disclosures of questionable consulting fees, a demographic shift to younger patients, and uncertainty about the marginal benefits of product innovation in a time of great cost pressure invite a serious and progressive response from the profession. Current efforts to standardize measures by the National Quality Forum and PQRI will not address the concerns of purchasers, payors, or policy makers. Instead, they will ask the profession to document its commitment to appropriateness, stewardship of resources, coordination of care, and patient-centeredness. One mechanism for addressing these expectations is voluntary development of a uniform national registry for joint replacements that includes capture of preoperative appropriateness indicators, device monitoring information, revision rates, and structured postoperative patient followup. A national registry should support performance feedback and quality improvement activity, but it must also be designed to satisfy payor, purchaser, policymaker, and patient needs for information. Professional societies in orthopaedics should lead a collaborative process to develop metrics, infrastructure, and reporting formats that support continuous improvement and public accountability.