ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical profile of COVID-19 inpatients who were vaccinated prior to hospitalization and to compare the risk factors for death and the 28-day survival rate of between those inpatients vaccinated with one, two, or three doses and unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study involving COVID-19 patients admitted to a referral hospital in the city of Recife, Brazil, between July of 2020 and June of 2022. RESULTS: The sample comprised 1,921 inpatients, 996 of whom (50.8%) were vaccinated prior to hospitalization. After adjusting the mortality risk for vaccinated patients, those undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) had the highest mortality risk (adjusted OR [aOR] = 7.4; 95% CI, 3.8-14.1; p < 0.001), followed by patients > 80 years of age (aOR = 7.3; 95% CI, 3.4-15.4; p < 0.001), and those needing vasopressors (aOR = 5.6; 95% CI, 2.9-10.9; p < 0.001). After adjusting the mortality risk for all patients, having received three vaccine doses (aOR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11; p < 0.001) was the most important protective factor against death. There were progressive benefits of vaccination, reducing the frequency of ICU admissions, use for IMV, and death (respectively, from 44.9%, 39.0% and 39.9% after the first dose to 16.7%, 6.2% and 4.4% after the third dose), as well as significant improvements in survival after each subsequent dose (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines were effective in reducing illness severity and death in this cohort of COVID-19 inpatients, and the administration of additional doses conferred them with accumulative vaccine protection.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Inpatients , Humans , Cohort Studies , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , Risk Factors , Patient AcuityABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the clinical profile of COVID-19 inpatients who were vaccinated prior to hospitalization and to compare the risk factors for death and the 28-day survival rate of between those inpatients vaccinated with one, two, or three doses and unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients. Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study involving COVID-19 patients admitted to a referral hospital in the city of Recife, Brazil, between July of 2020 and June of 2022. Results: The sample comprised 1,921 inpatients, 996 of whom (50.8%) were vaccinated prior to hospitalization. After adjusting the mortality risk for vaccinated patients, those undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) had the highest mortality risk (adjusted OR [aOR] = 7.4; 95% CI, 3.8-14.1; p < 0.001), followed by patients > 80 years of age (aOR = 7.3; 95% CI, 3.4-15.4; p < 0.001), and those needing vasopressors (aOR = 5.6; 95% CI, 2.9-10.9; p < 0.001). After adjusting the mortality risk for all patients, having received three vaccine doses (aOR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11; p < 0.001) was the most important protective factor against death. There were progressive benefits of vaccination, reducing the frequency of ICU admissions, use for IMV, and death (respectively, from 44.9%, 39.0% and 39.9% after the first dose to 16.7%, 6.2% and 4.4% after the third dose), as well as significant improvements in survival after each subsequent dose (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Vaccines were effective in reducing illness severity and death in this cohort of COVID-19 inpatients, and the administration of additional doses conferred them with accumulative vaccine protection.
RESUMO Objetivo: Traçar o perfil clínico de pacientes internados com COVID-19 que haviam sido vacinados antes da hospitalização e comparar os fatores de risco para óbito e a taxa de sobrevida em 28 dias entre esses internados vacinados com uma, duas ou três doses e pacientes internados com COVID-19 não vacinados. Métodos: Estudo de coorte observacional retrospectivo envolvendo pacientes com COVID-19 internados em um hospital de referência na cidade do Recife (PE) entre julho de 2020 e junho de 2022. Resultados: A amostra foi composta por 1.921 pacientes internados, dos quais 996 (50,8%) haviam sido vacinados antes da hospitalização. Após ajuste do risco de mortalidade para os pacientes vacinados, aqueles submetidos à ventilação mecânica invasiva (VMI) apresentaram o maior risco de mortalidade (OR ajustada [ORa] = 7,4; IC95%: 3,8-14,1; p < 0,001), seguidos pelos pacientes > 80 anos (ORa = 7,3; IC95%: 3,4-15,4; p < 0,001) e aqueles que necessitam de vasopressores (ORa = 5,6; IC95%: 2,9-10,9; p < 0,001). Após ajuste do risco de mortalidade para todos os pacientes, o recebimento de três doses de vacina (ORa = 0,06; IC95%: 0,03-0,11; p < 0,001) foi o fator de proteção mais importante contra o óbito. Houve benefícios progressivos da vacinação, com redução da frequência de internações em UTI, de uso de VMI e de óbitos (de 44,9%, 39,0% e 39,9% após a primeira dose para 16,7%, 6,2% e 4,4% após a terceira dose, respectivamente), bem como melhora significativa na sobrevida após cada dose subsequente (p < 0,001). Conclusões: As vacinas foram efetivas na redução da gravidade da doença e dos óbitos nesta coorte de pacientes internados com COVID-19, e a aplicação de doses adicionais conferiu-lhes proteção vacinal cumulativa.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Identifying effective methods for safeguarding the efficient functioning of the healthcare system contributes significantly towards establishing a successful healthcare organization. Consequently, quality management programs are currently being implemented in healthcare as a vital strategy for patient care. Quality management encompasses protocols and guidelines in decision-making and in the evaluation of processes and treatment flowcharts, data analysis and health indicators, and addresses improvement in the interaction between different health professionals. Qualifying health professionals to perform quality management has represented a barrier to implementing a well-structured management system. Indeed, the pathway to qualifying health managers is often poorly outlined, with clear gaps in the definition of their competencies, training and career plans. Therefore, studies and education-related actions aimed at qualifying health professionals in management are vital if health services of excellence are to be established. The present study aimed to plan, develop, implement and evaluate a management specialization course in oncology using blended learning. METHODS: Following approval by the institution's internal review board, the study was conducted at the Instituto de Medicina Integral Prof. Fernando Figueira (IMIP). The Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) model was used to plan, develop, implement and evaluate the course. Data were collected as the course participants who had concluded all the modules evaluated the program. RESULTS: A management course in oncology, consisting of ten sequential modules, was developed and implemented between March 2018 and February 2019. The course consisted of monthly face-to-face encounters, each with 12 h of activities, and distance education using a virtual learning environment. Each module was presented by a specialist on the subject in question. After the end-of-course conclusion work had already been handed in and evaluated by the tutors, the participants completed a form to assess the course using Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model. CONCLUSIONS: A management course in oncology was developed using the ADDIE model. A high degree of satisfaction was found among the participants regarding improvements in their management skills and their professional behavior. The expectation is that this initiative will ultimately improve healthcare and reduce costs, as well as encourage further innovative educational actions for health professionals.
Subject(s)
Curriculum , Education, Distance/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/education , Practice Management, Medical , Humans , SpecializationABSTRACT
Este artigo utiliza o referencial teórico da análise de políticas para estudar o Programa Mais Médicos. Analisa e sistematiza informações e estudos relacionados às questões sociais tomadas como objeto dessa política, quais sejam, a insuficiência de médicos no País para atender às necessidades da população e a inadequação, na perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde, do modelo de formação médica vigente, e estuda o contexto que possibilitou a criação do Programa. Descreve e analisa as inovações e os instrumentos da política, criados com a Lei 12.871, e analisa a situação atual de sua implantação em três dimensões: na formação e atuação de médicos nas localidades mais vulneráveis e com maiores necessidades; na mudança da formação médica, tanto no que diz respeito à graduação quanto à residência médica; e, finalmente, no incremento e na reorientação da abertura de vagas na graduação ena residência, para que o Brasil chegue a 2026 com a proporção de 2,7 médicos para cada 1.000 habitantes.
This article uses the theoretical framework of policy analysis to study the Mais Médicos Program for Brazil. Analyzes and organizes information and studies related to social issues taken as object of this policy, namely, the insufficiency of physicians in the country to meet the needs of the population and the inadequacy, from the perspective of the Unified Health System, of the current medical training model, and studies the context that enabled the creation of the Program. The innovations and policy tools created by Law 12,871 are also described and analyzed, along with the analysis of the current status of its implementation in three dimensions:the training and the performance of doctors in the most vulnerable locations and with the greatest needs; the change of medical training, from graduation to medical residency; and finally, in growth and reorientation of the vacancy at the undergraduate and residence aiming that Brazil reaches in 2026 the ratio of 2.7 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants.
