ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of delirium and its subtypes in patients admitted to different departments of university hospitals in Latin America. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of delirium and the frequency of its subtypes, as well as its associated factors, in patients admitted to different departments of a university hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. METHODS: A cohort of patients over 18 years of age admitted to the internal medicine (IM), geriatrics (GU), general surgery (GSU), orthopaedics (OU) and intensive care unit (ICU) services of a university hospital was followed up between January and June 2018. To detect the presence of delirium, we used the CAM (Confusion Assessment Method) and the CAM-ICU if the patient had decreased communication skills. The delirium subtype was characterised using the RASS (Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale). Patients were assessed on their admission date and then every two days until discharged from the hospital. Those in whom delirium was identified were referred for specialised intra-institutional interdisciplinary management. RESULTS: A total of 531 patients admitted during the period were assessed. The overall incidence of delirium was 12% (95% CI, 0.3-14.8). They represented 31.8% of patients in the GU, 15.6% in the ICU, 8.7% in IM, 5.1% in the OU, and 3.9% in the GSU. The most frequent clinical display was the mixed subtype, at 60.9%, followed by the normoactive subtype (34.4%) and the hypoactive subtype (4.7%). The factors most associated with delirium were age (adjusted RRâ¯=â¯1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09), the presence of four or more comorbidities (adjusted RRâ¯=â¯2.04; 95% CI, 1.31-3.20), and being a patient in the ICU (adjusted RRâ¯=â¯2.02; 95% CI, 1.22-3.35). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of delirium is heterogeneous in the different departments of the university hospital. The highest incidence occurred in patients that were admitted to the GU. The mixed subtype was the most frequent one, and the main associated factors were age, the presence of four or more comorbidities, and being an ICU patient.
Subject(s)
Delirium , Hospitals, University , Humans , Delirium/epidemiology , Delirium/diagnosis , Incidence , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Colombia/epidemiology , Aged, 80 and over , Adult , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: in Colombia, the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of patients with type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2) diabetes do not mention the use of flash glucose monitoring, as this system was not available. The objective of this study was to establish a set of recommendations for the use of intermittent flash monitoring in Colombia. Methods: the group of experts consisted of eight Colombian physicians from different cities within Colombia, with expertise in the management of patients with DM1 and DM2; a certified diabetes nurse educator; a patient with DM1; and a methodological expert. Using the Zoom Enterprise video conferencing application (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California), the group generated questions through the Metaplan method, then carried out a systematic literature search and evidence review. The recommendations were made according to the degree of evidence and strength of the recommendation, following the GRADE method. Results: clinical recommendations were made for: a) patients with DM1 and hypoglycemia; b) patients with DM1 and poor metabolic control; c) patients with insulin-treated DM2; d) pregestational diabetes; e) quality of life; and f) inpatient use. Conclusions: this consensus's clinical recommendations guide clinical decision making with regard to the use of intermittent flash monitoring in patients with diabetes in various clinical settings. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239).
Resumen Introducción: en Colombia las Guías de Práctica Clínica para el manejo del paciente con diabetes tipo 1 (DM1) y tipo 2 (DM2) no mencionan el uso del monitoreo de glucosa flash dado que dicho sistema no estaba disponible. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue establecer un grupo de recomendaciones sobre el uso del monitoreo intermitente flash en Colombia. Métodos: el grupo de expertos estuvo conformado por ocho médicos colombianos expertos en el manejo de pacientes con DM1 y DM2 de diversas ciudades de Colombia, una enfermera licenciada educadora en diabetes, una paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 y un experto metodológico. A través de Zoom Enterprise versión de la aplicación de videoconferencia Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California) el grupo generó las preguntas con metodología Metaplan. Posteriormente, se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura y análisis de la evidencia. Las recomendaciones se generaron mediante grupo nominal según el grado de evidencia y la formaleza de la recomendación siguiendo la metodología GRADE. Resultados: se generaron recomendaciones clínicas enfocadas a: a) paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 e hipoglucemia; b) paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 y mal control metabólico, c) paciente con diagnóstico de DM tipo 2 tratado con insulina, d) diabetes pregestacional, e) calidad de vida y f) uso intrahospitalario. Conclusiones: las recomendaciones clínicas del presente consenso orientan la toma de decisiones clínicas con respecto al uso de monitoreo intermitente flash en el paciente con diagnóstico de diabetes en diferentes escenarios clínicos. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239).
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To present overall strategies and activities for the implementation process of the recommendations contained in the clinical practice guideline for the management of adults with schizophrenia (GPC_E) published by the Colombian Ministry of Health and Welfare (MSPS). Prioritize the proposed recommendations, identify barriers and solving strategies to implement the GPC_E, and develop a monitoring and evaluation system for the key recommendations. METHOD: The Guideline Developer Group (GDG) included professionals with primary dedication to implementation issues that accompanied the entire process. During the GDG meetings implementation topics were identified and discussed, and later complemented by literature reviews concerning the experience of mental health guidelines implementation at national and international level. Additionally, feedback from the discussions raised during the socialization meetings, and joint meetings with the MSPS and the Institute of Technology Assessment in Health (IETS) were included. The prioritization of recommendations was made in conjunction with the GDG, following the proposed steps in the methodological guide for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines with Economic Evaluation in the General System of Social Security in Colombian Health (GMEGPC) using the tools 13 and 14. the conclusions and final adjustments were discussed with the GPC_E leaders. RESULTS: The implementation chapter includes a description of the potential barriers, solution strategies, facilitators and monitoring indicators. The identified barriers were categorized in the following 3 groups: Cultural context, health system and proposed interventions. The issues related to solving strategies and facilitating education programs include community mental health, mental health training for health workers in primary care, decentralization and integration of mental health services at the primary care level, use of technologies information and communication and telemedicine. To monitor and evaluate o the implementation process, five (5) indicators were designed one (1) structure, two (2) process and two (2)outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: The GPC_E implementation within the Colombian General health System of Social Security (SGSSSC) poses multiple challenges. Potential barriers, enabling strategies and indicators for monitoring and evaluation described in this article, can provide efficient support to ensure the success of this process in the institutions that will adopt the guideline.
