ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To measure the clinical impact of the introduction of a reminder system for healthcare professionals to alert patients who are at risk for pressure ulcers (PU). METHODS: This was a pre- and post-test study of patients who were discharged from 6 medical-surgical units of the University Hospital of Fuenlabrada in 2009 and 2010. Beginning in January 2010, implementation of an on-screen list of reminders was automatically updated daily on the units' computers including patient arrival date, last assessment of ulceration risk and location of any PU. The cumulative incidence of PU was measured for patients discharged in 2009 (group A: healthcare professionals were not exposed to on-screen reminder) and 2010 (group B: healthcare professionals were exposed to on-screen reminder list). The relative risk (RR) was estimated. The study was completed with a stratified analysis and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: In group A, there were 84 cases of PU among 9263 patients discharged (0.9%); whereas in group B, there were 59 cases among 9220 patients discharged (0.6%). The RR of PU for group B/group A was 0.706 (p=0.038). In the logistic regression analysis, after adjusting for study variables, the odds ratio of PU B/A was 0.558. CONCLUSION: A list of on-screen reminders at the beginning of a healthcare professional's shift to inform them of patients at risk for developing a PU was effective at reducing the incidence of these clinical burdens.
Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Pressure Ulcer/prevention & control , Reminder Systems , Aged , Computer Systems , Female , Humans , Male , Medical RecordsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To compare pressure ulcers (PU) found in this prospective observational study with PU recorded in the Electronic Medical Record (EHR). METHOD: We use a prospective observational study to record PU, with daily monitoring by an observer in the medical-surgical units of hospitalization, as well as a clinical record review of PU tracking. Patient monitoring was conducted between December 2008 and March 2009 at Fuenlabrada University hospital. We calculated the absolute and relative frequency of PU in the patients followed, as well as the association among qualitative variables and the validity of the registration in the EHR with regard to the reference standard, the observational study. RESULTS: Among the 1,001 patients followed-up in this study, 42 of them showed PU (4.2% of the total patients), compared to 25 (2.5%) patients who had registered PU in the Electronic Health Record, which means a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The record of PU presents a Kappa index of 0.548, with a sensitivity of 47.62 % and a specificity of 99.48 %, with regard to the reference standard, the observational study. CONCLUSION: The number of patients with pressure ulcers almost doubled if the observational data collection is done by an expert nurse compared to what was recorded in the EHR.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Pressure Ulcer , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Objetivos: Comparar las úlceras por presión (UPP) encontradas en este estudio observacional prospectivo con las registradas en la historia clínica electrónica (HCE). Método: Estudio observacional prospectivo para registrarlas UPP, con seguimiento diario por una observadora en las unidades de hospitalización médico-quirúrgicas y revisión del registro clínico de seguimiento de UPP. El seguimiento de los pacientes se realizó entre diciembre de 2008 y marzo de 2009 en el hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada. Se ha calculado la frecuencia absoluta y relativa de UPP en los pacientes seguidos, la asociación entre variables cualitativas y la validez del registro en la HCE con respecto al patrón de referencia, el estudio observacional. Resultados: Se ha completado un seguimiento a 1.001 pacientes encontrando 42 pacientes con UPP frente a los 25 pacientes que tenían registrada UPP en la HCE, siendo estadísticamente significativa la diferencia (p<0,001). El registro de la UPP en la HCE presenta un índice Kappa de 0,584 con una sensibilidad de 47,62% y una especificidad de 99,48% con respecto a la observación directa. Conclusión: El número de pacientes que presentan UPP prácticamente se duplica si la recogida de datos es observacional por una enfermera experta frente a lo registrado en la HCE (AU)
Background: To compare pressure ulcers (PU) found in this prospective observational study with PU recorded in the Electronic Medical Record (EHR). Method: We use a prospective observational study to record PU, with daily monitoring by an observer in the medical-surgical units of hospitalization, as well as a clinical record review of PU tracking. Patient monitoring was conducted between December 2008 and March 2009 at Fuenlabrada University hospital. We calculated the absolute and relative frequency of PU in the patients followed, as well as the association among qualitative variables and the validity of the registration in the EHR with regard to the reference standard, the observational study. Results: Among the 1,001 patients followed-up in this study, 42 of them showed PU (4.2% of the total patients), compared to 25 (2.5%) patients who had registered PU in the Electronic Health Record, which means a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The record of PU presents a Kappa index of 0.548, with a sensitivity of 47.62 % and a specificity of 99.48 %, with regard to the reference standard, the observational study. Conclusion: The number of patients with pressure ulcers almost doubled if the observational data collection is done by an expert nurse compared to what was recorded in the EHR (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Pressure Ulcer/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records/organization & administration , Nursing Care/organization & administration , Medical Records/standards , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Fundamento. Medir el impacto clínico de la implantación de un sistema de recordatorios, que avise de los pacientes que tienen riesgo de presentar un evento adverso (EA) relacionado con los catéteres venosos periféricos. Métodos. A partir de los registros que se utilizan para seguimiento de los catéteres intravenosos se desarrolló una consulta automatizada que elabora un listado de los pacientes ingresados que incluye fecha de ingreso, fecha colocación, vía y tipo de vía. Se actualiza por turno en los ordenadores de la unidad. Se implantó en enero de 2010. Se ha realizado un estudio cuasi experimental midiendo la incidencia acumulada de flebitis, extravasaciones y obstrucciones en los pacientes dados de alta en 2009 y en 2010. Se ha evaluado la asociación entre variables cualitativas con el test de Chicuadrado, se ha estimado riesgo relativo (RR) y el número necesario de pacientes a tratar (NNT). Resultados. En el año 2009 fueron dados de alta en las unidades de estudio 9.263 pacientes y en 2010, 9.220 pacientes. Los resultados encontrados han sido: Pacientes que desarrollan flebitis 2010/2009: RR: 0,827 (p<0,001). Pacientes que presentan extravasaciones 2010/2009: RR: 0,804 (p<0,001).Pacientes que presentan obstrucciones 2010/2009: RR:0,954 (p=0,554). Conclusiones. Un listado de recordatorios que incluye los pacientes con acceso vascular y la fecha de éste, ha servido para disminuir el número de flebitis y extravasaciones, pero no las obstrucciones(AU)
Background. The main purpose of this paper is to measure the clinical impact of the implementation of a reminder system that would warn of patients who are at risk of presenting an adverse event (AE) related to the peripheral venous catheter. Method. On the basis of the registers used for monitoring intravenous catheters, an automated consultation was realized that elaborated a list of the patients admitted, including: date of admission, date of the insertion of the venous access device, and type of device. It was implanted in January 2010and updated three times a day with the computers of the unit. A quasi-experimental study has measured the cumulative incidence of phlebitis, extravasation and obstructions in the patients registered in 2009 and 2010. The association between qualitative variables was evaluated with the Chisquared test, and relative risk (RR) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) were estimated. Results. Nine thousand two hundred and sixty-three patientswere registered in the studied units in the year 2009, and 9,220 patients in 2010. The results were the following: Patients with phlebitis 2010/2009: RR: 0.827 (p < 0.001). Patients with extravasations 2010/2009: RR: 0.804 (p < 0.001).Patients with obstructions 2010/2009: RR: 0.954 (p < 0.554).Conclusion. With the help of a reminder list (which includes the patients with vascular access and the date), there has been a decrease in the number of phlebitis and extravasations but not in the number of obstructions(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Catheterization, Peripheral/methods , Health Records, Personal , Reminder Systems , /adverse effects , Phlebitis/prevention & control , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The main purpose of this paper is to measure the clinical impact of the implementation of a reminder system that would warn of patients who are at risk of presenting an adverse event (AE) related to the peripheral venous catheter. METHOD: On the basis of the registers used for monitoring intravenous catheters, an automated consultation was realized that elaborated a list of the patients admitted, including: date of admission, date of the insertion of the venous access device, and type of device. It was implanted in January 2010 and updated three times a day with the computers of the unit. A quasi-experimental study has measured the cumulative incidence of phlebitis, extravasation and obstructions in the patients registered in 2009 and 2010. The association between qualitative variables was evaluated with the Chi-squared test, and relative risk (RR) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) were estimated. RESULTS: Nine thousand two hundred and sixty-three patients were registered in the studied units in the year 2009, and 9,220 patients in 2010. The results were the following: Patients with phlebitis 2010/2009: RR: 0.827 (p < 0.001). Patients with extravasations 2010/2009: RR: 0.804 (p < 0.001). Patients with obstructions 2010/2009: RR: 0.954 (p < 0.554). CONCLUSION: With the help of a reminder list (which includes the patients with vascular access and the date), there has been a decrease in the number of phlebitis and extravasations but not in the number of obstructions.