Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
2.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; 18: e127, 2024 Sep 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39291318

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: A surge of pediatric respiratory illnesses beset the United States in late 2022 and early 2023. This study evaluated within-surge hospital acute and critical care resource availability and utilization. The study aimed to determine pediatric hospital acute and critical care resource use during a respiratory illness surge. METHODS: Between January and February 2023, an online survey was sent to the sections of hospital medicine and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, community discussion forums of the Children's Hospital Association, and PedSCCM-a pediatric critical care website. Data were summarized with median values and interquartile range. RESULTS: Across 35 hospitals with pediatric intensive care units (PICU), increase in critical care resource use was significant. In the month preceding the survey, 26 (74%) hospitals diverted patients away from their emergency department (ED) to other hospitals, with 46% diverting 1-5 patients, 23% diverting 6-10 patients, and 31% diverting more than 10 patients. One in 5 hospitals reported moving patients on mechanical ventilation from the PICU to other settings, including the ED (n = 2), intermediate care unit (n = 2), cardiac ICU (n = 1), ward converted to an ICU (n = 1), and a ward (n = 1). Utilization of human critical care resources was high, with PICU faculty, nurses, and respiratory therapists working at 100% capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The respiratory illness surge triggered significant hospital resource use and diversion of patients away from hospitals. Pediatric public health emergency-preparedness should innovate around resource capacity.


Asunto(s)
Capacidad de Reacción , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos , Capacidad de Reacción/estadística & datos numéricos , Cuidados Críticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Niño , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico/estadística & datos numéricos , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico/organización & administración , Recursos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Recursos en Salud/provisión & distribución , Pediatría/estadística & datos numéricos , Pediatría/métodos , Pediatría/tendencias
3.
BMC Res Notes ; 17(1): 115, 2024 Apr 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38654333

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary function test (PFT) results are recorded variably across hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record (EHR), using both unstructured and semi-structured notes. We developed and validated a hospital-specific code to extract pre-bronchodilator measures of obstruction (ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC]) and severity of obstruction (percent predicted of FEV1). RESULTS: Among 36 VA facilities with the most PFTs completed between 2018 and 2022 from a parent cohort of veterans receiving long-acting controller inhalers, 12 had a consistent syntactical convention or template for reporting PFT data in the EHR. Of the 42,718 PFTs identified from these 12 facilities, the hospital-specific text processing pipeline yielded 24,860 values for the FEV1:FVC ratio and 23,729 values for FEV1. A ratio of FEV1:FVC less than 0.7 was identified in 17,615 of 24,922 studies (70.7%); 8864 of 24,922 (35.6%) had a severe or very severe reduction in FEV1 (< 50% of the predicted value). Among 100 randomly selected PFT reports reviewed by two pulmonary physicians, the coding solution correctly identified the presence of obstruction in 99 out of 100 studies and the degree of obstruction in 96 out of 100 studies.


Asunto(s)
Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Pruebas de Función Respiratoria , United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Pruebas de Función Respiratoria/métodos , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado , Capacidad Vital , Veteranos/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Femenino
4.
Crit Care Explor ; 5(6): e0926, 2023 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37637354

RESUMEN

Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals. DESIGN: Electronic survey assessing the use of best practices for recovery from COVID-related and non-COVID-related sepsis. Questions included four-point Likert responses of "never" to "always/nearly always." SETTING: Twenty-six veterans affairs hospitals with the highest (n = 13) and lowest (n = 13) risk-adjusted 90-day sepsis survival. SUBJECTS: Inpatient and outpatient clinician leaders. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each domain, we calculated the proportion of "always/nearly always" responses and mean Likert scores. We assessed for differences by hospital survival, COVID versus non-COVID sepsis, and sepsis case volume. Across eight domains of care, the proportion "always/nearly always" responses ranged from: 80.7% (social support) and 69.8% (medication management) to 22.5% (physical recovery and adaptation) and 0.0% (emotional support). Higher-survival hospitals more often performed screening for new symptoms/limitations (49.2% vs 35.1% "always/nearly always," p = 0.02) compared with lower-survival hospitals. There was no difference in "always/nearly always" responses for COVID-related versus non-COVID-related sepsis, but small differences in mean Likert score in four domains: care coordination (3.34 vs 3.48, p = 0.01), medication management (3.59 vs 3.65, p = 0.04), screening for new symptoms/limitations (3.13 vs 3.20, p = 0.02), and anticipatory guidance and education (2.97 vs 2.84, p < 0.001). Lower case volume hospitals more often performed care coordination (72.7% vs 43.8% "always/nearly always," p = 0.02), screening for new symptoms/limitations (60.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.001), and social support (100% vs 74.2%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show variable adoption of practices for sepsis recovery. Future work is needed to understand why some practice domains are employed more frequently than others, and how to facilitate practice implementation, particularly within rarely adopted domains such as emotional support.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA