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

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Ano de publicação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Emerg Nurs ; 50(3): 342-353, 2024 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38597852

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The national pediatric mental and behavioral health crisis dramatically increased emergency department mental and behavioral health visits and changed emergency nursing practice. Acuity assessment determines patient severity level and supports appropriate resources and interventions. There are no established nursing tools that assess pediatric mental or behavioral health acuity in the emergency department setting. Our goal was to develop and implement the novel pediatric emergency nurse Emergency Behavioral Health Acuity Assessment Tool. METHODS: This quality-improvement project used the plan, do, study, act model to design/refine the Emergency Behavioral Health Acuity Assessment Tool and a non-experimental descriptive design to assess outcomes. The setting was a 47-bed urban level 1 pediatric trauma center with more than 60,000 annual visits. The team designed the tool using published evidence, emergency nurse feedback, and expert opinion. The tool objectively captured patient acuity and suggested acuity-specific nursing interventions. Project outcomes included acuity, length-of-stay, restraint use, and patient/staff injuries. Analyses included descriptive statistics and correlations. RESULTS: With over 3000 annual mental/behavioral-related visits, the emergency department had an average daily census of 23 mental and behavioral health patients. Implementation occurred in August 2021. The Emergency Behavioral Health Acuity Assessment Tool dashboard provided the number of patients, patient location, and acuity. Length-of-stay did not change; however, patient restraint use and patient/staff injuries declined. Number of restraints positively correlated with moderate acuity levels (r = 0.472, P = 0.036). DISCUSSION: For emergency nurses, the Emergency Behavioral Health Acuity Assessment Tool provided an objective measure of patient acuity. Targeted interventions can improve the care of this population.


Assuntos
Enfermagem em Emergência , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Enfermagem Pediátrica , Melhoria de Qualidade , Humanos , Enfermagem em Emergência/métodos , Criança , Enfermagem Pediátrica/métodos , Transtornos Mentais/enfermagem , Transtornos Mentais/diagnóstico , Avaliação em Enfermagem/métodos , Gravidade do Paciente , Feminino , Masculino
2.
BMJ Open ; 14(2): e078171, 2024 Feb 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38382954

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Multiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have become commercially available following randomised controlled trials demonstrating benefits in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, their real-world utility may be undermined by user-associated burdens, including the need to carbohydrate count and deliver manual insulin boluses. There is an important need for a 'fully automated closed loop' (FCL) AID system, without manual mealtime boluses. The (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial is a randomised trial comparing an FCL AID system to the same system used as a hybrid closed loop (HCL) in people with T1D, in an outpatient setting over an extended time frame. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised, open-label, parallel, non-inferiority trial comparing the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) AID algorithm used as FCL to the same algorithm used as HCL. Seventy-five participants aged 18-70 will be randomised (1:1) to one of two treatment arms for 12 weeks: (a) FCL-participants will be advised not to bolus for meals and (b) HCL-participants will use the AAPS AID algorithm as HCL with announced meals. The primary outcome is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include other glycaemic metrics, safety, psychosocial factors, platform performance and user dietary factors. Twenty FCL arm participants will participate in a 4-week extension phase comparing glycaemic and dietary outcomes using NovoRapid (insulin aspart) to Fiasp (insulin aspart and niacinamide). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals are by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (615/22) (Australia) and Health and Disability Ethics Committees (2022 FULL 13832) (New Zealand). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Data protection and confidentiality will be ensured. Study results will be disseminated by publications, conferences and patient advocacy groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ACTRN12622001400752 and ACTRN12622001401741.


Assuntos
Glicemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglicemiantes , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Insulina , Pâncreas Artificial , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Adulto , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Glicemia/análise , Adulto Jovem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adolescente , Algoritmos , Feminino , Idoso , Masculino , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estudos de Equivalência como Asunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA