RESUMEN
Mnemonics are word formulations that aid physicians in recalling instances hidden among typical applications and may be neglected due to workload. Mnemonic abbreviations that benefit not only physicians but the entire care team are widely used throughout the world. Given that palliative care is the work of a multidisciplinary team, these mnemonics become even more significant. The aim of this study is to introduce the acronym "SAFE HUGS IN PC" (Sleep patterns, Analgesia, Feeding, Environment, Hospital Discharge-Home Care, Ulcer, Gastrointestinal, Social Support-Spiritual, Infection, Need of Religion, Physiotherapy-Psychotherapy, Goals of Care), which we believe will meet the requirements in the palliative care. The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, and Pubmed for studies exploring experiences of palliative care. With this mnemonic, which we use in our own clinic, patients' and patients' relatives' satisfaction and end-of-life quality have increased. We believe this simple mnemonic will encourage teamwork and help improve the quality of life on palliative care.
RESUMEN
Background/aim: To compare the inferior vena cava (IVC) indices, identify their variation rates at positive pressure values and accurate predictive values for the volume status in patients with spontaneous respiration receiving different positive pressure support. Materials and methods: The study included 100 patients who were divided into 4 pressure support groups, according to the different pressure supports received, and 3 volume groups according to their CVP values. Ultrasonography was applied to all of the patients to define their IVC diameters at different pressure supports. Dynamic parameters were derived from the ultrasonographic assessment of the IVC diameter [collapsibility (CI-IVC), distensibility (dIVC), and delta (ΔIVC) indices]. Results: There were significant differences between the 3 indices (CI-IVC, dIVC, and ΔIVC) according to the pressure groups [(10/5), (10/0), (0/5), (t tube 0/0)]. The median value for the dIVC percentages was ≤18% for all of the positive pressure support hypervolemic groups, apart from the hypervolemic t tube group (19%). For the hypervolemic groups, the best estimation according to the cut-off value appeared to be for the dIVC. Values with the highest sensitivity for differentiation of the hypovolemic individuals were calculated with the dIVC. Conclusion: The dIVC had a more accurate predictive role in predicting the volume status when compared with the CI-IVC and ΔIVC, and may be used reliably with positive pressure supports.