ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Desarrollar un conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarias mediante un consenso colectivo de un panel de expertos que permita priorizar las actividades a realizar por los farmacéuticos en estas unidades. Método: Un comité formado por miembros de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) evaluó una propuesta inicial de actividades e indicadores potenciales, basados en la evidencia científica disponible, en formato de cuestionario. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos del panel clasificó de forma individual la relevancia de cada una de las actividades propuestas en cuatro dimensiones: evidencia científica, impacto en la respuesta clínica y seguridad para el paciente, facilidad de implementación y grado de prioridad. La segunda ronda se realizó mediante una reunión grupal de forma virtual, a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas, así como los comentarios vertidos por los participantes del panel de forma anónima. En esta ronda, cada actividad fue clasificada por consenso como básica, intermedia o avanzada en función del grado de prioridad de implantación considerado por el grupo de expertos. Resultados: Se propusieron un total de 26 potenciales actividades a los expertos, con indicadores asociados. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, no se eliminó ninguna de las actividades propuestas. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron 25 actividades, de las cuales se puntuaron 9 como actividades básicas, 10 actividades como intermedias y 6 actividades como avanzadas. (AU)
Objective: To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this setting. Material and methods: A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced. Results: The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Pharmaceutical Services , Emergency Service, Hospital , Pharmacists , Spain , Societies, Scientific , Consensus , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis is the most prevalent surgical pathology in cardiac surgery, and its isolated replacement has historically been performed by means of complete middle sternotomy. However, a great revolution has recently taken place, especially after the arrival of sutureless aortic prostheses that, together with a new impulse by cardiac surgery towards a less invasive course, has caused the replacement of said valve to be carried out more and more frequently due to these prostheses and minor access incisions. For this reason, we carried out a review of the cases operated on in our service from the beginning of the minimum access surgery program, comparing them with the results of the cases operated at the same time using conventional surgery.
La estenosis aórtica severa sintomática es la patología quirúrgica más prevalente en cirugía cardiaca y su sustitución aislada se ha realizado históricamente mediante esternotomía media completa. Sin embargo, se ha producido recientemente una gran revolución, especialmente tras la llegada de las prótesis aórticas sin suturas que, unido a un nuevo impulso por la cirugía cardiaca hacia un rumbo menos invasivo, ha provocado que el reemplazo de dicha válvula se lleve a cabo cada vez más frecuentemente por dichas prótesis y por incisiones de mínimo acceso. Por ello, realizamos una revisión de los casos intervenidos en nuestro servicio desde el inicio del programa de cirugía de mínimo acceso comparándolos con los resultados de los casos intervenidos en la misma época mediante cirugía convencional.
ABSTRACT
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVE: Traumatological patients are vulnerable to medication error given multiple handoffs throughout the hospital since they often require rapid diagnosis and management of multiple concurrent complex conditions. The purpose of this study was to analyze the medication errors (MEs) occurring in the care transition of the traumatological patient. The secondary objectives were to classify the MEs and the level of risk of the pharmacological groups involved. In addition, the causes and contributing factors of those MEs were analyzed. METHODS: An observational, descriptive, and prospective study, spanning 4 months, was performed in a tertiary hospital. All patients admitted to the traumatology service were selected for the study. Data were collected in different locations of the hospital stay: Emergency Service, Resuscitation and Post-Anaesthesia Unit, and Traumatology Hospitalization Unit. In each location, data from the different processes (reconciliation, prescription, validation, dispensing, and administration of medicines) were collected. The medication error (ME) was established as a dependent variable. RESULTS: A total of 31.3% (132) of the patients analyzed showed some ME. The Traumatology Unit was the location where most errors were detected, followed by the Emergency Service. Having analyzed all the locations, it was observed that 64.2% (172) of the MEs were detected in the reconciliation process, 29.5% (79) in the prescription, 3.7% (10) in the dispensing, 1.5% (4) in the administration, and 1.1% (3) in the validation. In terms of risk weighting, the drugs involved in the MEs detected were 53.8% of medium risk, 20.7% of high risk, and 20.3% of low risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of MEs in the reconciliation process of medication in traumatological patients (64.2%) from our hospital setting. Interestingly, most MEs occurred in this process regardless of the location in the healthcare chain.
Subject(s)
Medication Errors/statistics & numerical data , Transitional Care , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Humans , Medication Reconciliation/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Risk Management , Wounds and Injuries/drug therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To carry out an approach for the development of a frailty index in nursing homes and to analize its potential use in order to individualize the pharmacological treatment. METHOD: The frailty index was constructed from the information included in the comprehensive geriatric assessment established in nursing homes. The index has been retrospectively applied to the patients of two centers using the last comprehensive geriatric assessment of each one. RESULTS: 17 variables that included 27 deficits were selected and classified in 4 domains. 269 patients (mean age 82.9 ± 8.8 years) were included in the analysis. The frailty index indicated that 86% of patients should be considered frail and 60% of these to moderate-advanced level. CONCLUSIONS: The frailty index is simple and quick to apply. It seems to have discriminative capacity in terms of quantifying the degree of frailty and it could be useful in prescribing the most appropriate therapeutic aggressiveness to each patient.
Objetivo: Realizar una aproximación al desarrollo de un índice de fragilidad en centros sociosanitarios y analizar su posible repercusión en el desarrollo de una farmacoterapia adecuada a la situación del paciente.Método: El índice de fragilidad se elaboró a partir de la información incluida en la valoración integral geriátrica y se aplicó de forma retrospectiva a los pacientes de dos centros a partir de la última valoración de cada uno de ellos.Resultados: Se seleccionaron 17 variables, que incluyeron 27 déficits. El análisis se realizó a 269 pacientes (edad media, 82,9 ± 8,8 años). El índice de fragilidad consideró frágiles al 86% de los pacientes, estando el 60% de estos en un nivel de fragilidad moderado-avanzado.Conclusiones: El índice de fragilidad resulta sencillo, rápido de aplicar y parece tener capacidad discriminatoria en la cuantificación del grado de fragilidad, pudiendo ser de ayuda para establecer la intensidad terapéutica más adecuada para cada paciente.
