Validación temporal de un modelo de riesgo de mortalidad por COVID-19 en una cohorte prospectiva en un servicio de urgencias de un hospital de tercer nivel / Risk score for mortality due to COVID-19: a prospective temporal validation cohort study in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital

Objetivo. Validación de un indicador de mortalidad previamente descrito en pacientes con COVID-19 en un servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). Método. Estudio observacional prospectivo no intervencionista. Se incluyeron pacientes $ 18 años diagnosticados de COVID-19 (1 de diciembre de 2020 hasta 28 de febrero de 2021). Se calculó el indicador para cada paciente: edad $ 50 años (2 puntos), índice de Barthel < 90 puntos (1 punto), alteración de consciencia (1 punto), índice de SaO2/ FIO2 < 400 (1 punto), auscultación respiratoria patológica (1 punto), plaquetas < 100 x 109/L (1 punto), proteína C reactiva $ 5 mg/dL (1 punto) y filtrado glomerular < 45 mL/min (1 punto). La variable dependiente fue la mortalidad observada a 30 días. El rendimiento del indicador se valoró con el análisis del área bajo la curva de la característica operativa del receptor (ABC-COR). Resultados. La validación del indicador se realizó sobre una cohorte de 1.223 pacientes. Tras una mediana de seguimiento de 80 días, 143 pacientes habían fallecido. Un total de 901 pacientes fueron catalogados como riesgo bajo (indicador # 4 puntos), 270 lo fueron como riesgo intermedio (5-6 puntos) y 52 como riesgo alto ($ 7 puntos). La mortalidad a 30 días observada en cada categoría fue de 2,8%, 22,5% y 65,4%, respectivamente. El ABC-COR fue de 0,883 para el indicador utilizado cuantitativamente y de 0,818 cuando se usó cualitativamente en forma de categorías de riesgo. Conclusión. El indicador descrito es una herramienta útil para estratificar el riesgo de mortalidad de los pacientes con COVID-19 que consultan a un SUH de un centro de tercer nivel.

Objective. To validate a previously described hospital emergency department risk model to predict mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods. Prospective observational noninterventional study. Patients aged over 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 were included between December 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. We calculated a risk score for each patient based on age $50 years (2 points) plus 1 point each for the presence of the following predictors: Barthel index <90 points, altered level of consciousness, ratio of arterial oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen <400, abnormal breath sounds, platelet concentration <100 × 109/L, C reactive protein level $5 mg/dL, and glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min. The dependent variable was 30-day mortality. We assessed the score’s performance with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results. The validation cohort included 1223 patients. After a median follow-up of 80 days, 143 patients had died; 901 patients were classified as having low risk (score, #4 points), 270 as intermediate risk (5-6 points), and 52 as high risk ($7 points). Thirty-day mortality rates at each risk level were 2.8%, 22.5%, and 65.4%, respectively. The AUC for the score was 0.883; for risk categorization, the AUC was 0.818. Conclusion. The risk score described is useful for stratifying risk for mortality in patients with COVID-19 who come to a tertiary-care hospital emergency department.

Adecuación de la historia farmacoterapéutica y errores de conciliación en un servicio de urgencias / Accuracy in the medication history and reconciliation errors in the emergency department

Fundamento y objetivo: Evaluar la calidad de la historia farmacoterapéutica registrada en un servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH) de un hospital de tercer nivel. Determinar la prevalencia de errores de conciliación (EC). Material y método: Estudio unicéntrico, prospectivo y de intervención. Se comparó la lista de medicación habitual obtenida por un farmacéutico frente a la registrada por el médico para identificar discrepancias. Posteriormente, se comparó la medicación habitual con la prescripción activa (SUH). Todas las discrepancias no justificadas se comentaron con el médico para determinar si se trataba de un EC. Se realizó un análisis univariante para identificar factores asociados con la aparición de EC. Resultados: El farmacéutico identificó un mayor número de fármacos habituales por paciente respecto al médico (6,89 frente a 5,70; p < 0,05). Únicamente el 39% de los fármacos identificados por el médico se registraron correctamente en la historia clínica. La principal causa de discrepancia fue la omisión de información a nivel de fármaco (39%) o de posología (33%). Se detectaron 157 EC que afectaron a 85 pacientes (43%), mayoritariamente por omisión (62%). Los principales factores asociados a EC fueron la edad y la polimedicación. La presencia de un cuidador/familiar responsable de la medicación fue un factor protector. No se encontró asociación entre discrepancias en el registro y EC. Conclusiones: La recogida de la historia farmacoterapéutica es un proceso susceptible de mejora. El farmacéutico puede ayudar a obtener una anamnesis de calidad e incrementar la seguridad del paciente interceptando EC. Es necesario mejorar los sistemas de información para evitar este tipo de incidentes (AU)

Background and objective: To assess the accuracy of pharmaceutical anamnesis obtained at the Emergency Department (ED) of a tertiary referral hospital and to determine the prevalence of medication reconciliation errors (RE). Material and method: This was a single-center, prospective, interventional study. The home medication list obtained by a pharmacist was compared with the one recorded by a doctor to identify inaccuracies. Subsequently, the home medication list was compared with the active prescription at the ED. All unexplained discrepancies were checked with the doctor in charge to evaluate if a RE has occurred. An univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with RE. Results: The pharmacist identified a higher number of drugs than doctors (6.89 versus 5.70; P < 0.05). Only 39% of the drugs obtained by doctors were properly written down in the patient's record. The main cause of discrepancy was omission of information regarding the name of the drug (39%) or its dosage (33%). One hundred and fifty-seven RE were identified and they affected 85 patients (43%), mainly related to information omission (62%). Age and polymedication were identified as main risk factors of RE. The presence of a caregiver or relative in the ED was judged to be a protective factor. No relationship was found between inaccuracies in the registries and RE. Conclusions: The process of obtaining a proper pharmaceutical anamnesis still needs improvement. The pharmacist may play a role in the process of obtaining a good quality anamnesis and increase patient safety by detecting RE. Better information systems are needed to avoid this type of incidents (AU)

[Accuracy in the medication history and reconciliation errors in the emergency department]. / Adecuación de la historia farmacoterapéutica y errores de conciliación en un servicio de urgencias.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of pharmaceutical anamnesis obtained at the Emergency Department (ED) of a tertiary referral hospital and to determine the prevalence of medication reconciliation errors (RE). MATERIAL AND METHOD: This was a single-center, prospective, interventional study. The home medication list obtained by a pharmacist was compared with the one recorded by a doctor to identify inaccuracies. Subsequently, the home medication list was compared with the active prescription at the ED. All unexplained discrepancies were checked with the doctor in charge to evaluate if a RE has occurred. An univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with RE. RESULTS: The pharmacist identified a higher number of drugs than doctors (6.89 versus 5.70; P<0.05). Only 39% of the drugs obtained by doctors were properly written down in the patient's record. The main cause of discrepancy was omission of information regarding the name of the drug (39%) or its dosage (33%). One hundred and fifty-seven RE were identified and they affected 85 patients (43%), mainly related to information omission (62%). Age and polymedication were identified as main risk factors of RE. The presence of a caregiver or relative in the ED was judged to be a protective factor. No relationship was found between inaccuracies in the registries and RE. CONCLUSIONS: The process of obtaining a proper pharmaceutical anamnesis still needs improvement. The pharmacist may play a role in the process of obtaining a good quality anamnesis and increase patient safety by detecting RE. Better information systems are needed to avoid this type of incidents.