Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Headache Pain ; 17(1): 111, 2016 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27933580

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard). METHODS: Employing previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient's education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient's satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety. RESULTS: Our study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this. CONCLUSIONS: This first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2).


Asunto(s)
Cefalea/terapia , Personal de Salud/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Centros de Atención Secundaria/normas , Especialización/normas , Centros de Atención Terciaria/normas , Adulto , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Femenino , Cefalea/diagnóstico , Cefalea/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/normas , Satisfacción del Paciente , Estudios Prospectivos , Derivación y Consulta
2.
J Headache Pain ; 17: 23, 2016.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26969187

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache is classified as a primary headache by definition not caused by an underlying pathology. However, symptomatic cases of otherwise typical cluster headache have been reported. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old male suffered from primary chronic cluster headache (CCH, ICHD-3 beta criteria fulfilled) since the age of 35 years. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study of the brain in 2006 came back normal. He tried several prophylactic treatments but was never longer than 1 month without attacks. He was under chronic treatment with verapamil with only a limited effect on the attack frequency. Subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg injections were very effective in aborting attacks. By February 2014 the patient developed a continuous interictal pain ipsilateral to the right-sided cluster headache attacks. An indomethacin test (up to 225 mg/day orally) was negative. Because of the change in headache pattern we performed a new brain MRI, which showed a cystic structure in the pituitary gland. The differential diagnosis was between a Rathke cleft cyst and a cystic adenoma. Pituitary function tests showed an elevated serum prolactin level. A dopamine agonist (cabergoline) was started and the headache subsided completely. Potential pathophysiological mechanisms of pituitary tumor-associated headache are discussed. CONCLUSION: Neuroimaging should be considered in all patients with CCH, especially those with an atypical presentation or evolution. Response to acute treatment does not exclude a secondary form of cluster headache. There may be shared pathophysiological mechanisms of primary and secondary cluster headache.


Asunto(s)
Adenoma/complicaciones , Quistes del Sistema Nervioso Central/complicaciones , Cefalalgia Histamínica/etiología , Agonistas de Dopamina/uso terapéutico , Ergolinas/uso terapéutico , Hipófisis/patología , Neoplasias Hipofisarias/complicaciones , Adenoma/tratamiento farmacológico , Adenoma/patología , Cabergolina , Quistes del Sistema Nervioso Central/tratamiento farmacológico , Quistes del Sistema Nervioso Central/patología , Cefalalgia Histamínica/tratamiento farmacológico , Cefalalgia Histamínica/patología , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias Hipofisarias/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Hipofisarias/patología , Sumatriptán/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Verapamilo/uso terapéutico
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA