RESUMEN
Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health-care costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of HF, the quality of care remains suboptimal. Our aim was to increase the use a care bundle in 50% of enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and discharge and to reduce their readmission for HF causes by 10%. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study in eight hospitals in Argentina to evaluate the effect of a quality improvement intervention on the use of an HF care bundle in patients with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III. The HF bundle of care included medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, and predischarge examinations. Training and follow-up of multidisciplinary teams in each center were performed through learning sessions and plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Data collectors reviewed bundle compliance in the health records of recruited patients after their hospital discharge and verified readmissions through phone calls to patients within 30-40 days after discharge. We recruited 200 patients (83 before and 127 during the intervention phase), and bundle compliance increased from 9.6% to 28.3% [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (8.46; 1.63); P = .002]. Despite a slow improvement during the first months, bundle compliance gained momentum near the end of the intervention surpassing 80%. We observed a non-significant decreased readmission rate within 30 days of discharge due to HF in the postintervention period [8.4% vs. 5.5%, odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI (1.88; 0.21); P = .410]. Qualitative analysis showed that members of the intervention teams acknowledged the improvement of work organization and standardization of care, teamwork, shared mental model, and health record completeness as well as the utility of training fellows. Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, better care of patients with HF NYHA Class II-III was possible through simple interventions and collaborative work. Graphical abstract.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Humanos , Pandemias , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Argentina/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Readmisión del PacienteRESUMEN
Resumen: El artículo examina la producción legislativa sobre derechos de los pacientes terminales en Argentina en dos momentos: los primeros intentos de regular los derechos en el final de la vida (1996) y la sanción de la ley de "muerte digna" en el Congreso Nacional (2011-2012). El análisis comparativo permite observar variaciones en torno a las personas y situaciones incluidas en la legislación, la forma en que se conceptualiza la autonomía y las intervenciones que se considera legítimo rechazar. El contexto político y la forma diferencial en que la "muerte digna" ingresó en la agenda legislativa en cada periodo determinaron la construcción pública del problema y con ello los alcances y el resultado de los debates.
Abstract: This article examines the regulation on terminal patients' rights in Argentina at two points in time: the first attempts to regulate end-of-life rights (1996), and the "death with dignity" law passed by the National Congress (2011-2012). Comparative analysis allows us to observe variations among the individuals and situations included in the legislation, as well as in the conceptualization of autonomy and the interventions that is considered lawful refuse. The political context and the differential way that "death with dignity" entered the legislative agenda in each period determined the public's construction of the problem and thus the extent and result of the debates.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Derecho a Morir , Eutanasia , Enfermo Terminal , Muerte , Argentina , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , JurisprudenciaRESUMEN
This article examines the regulation on terminal patients' rights in Argentina at two points in time: the first attempts to regulate end-of-life rights (1996), and the "death with dignity" law passed by the National Congress (2011-2012). Comparative analysis allows us to observe variations among the individuals and situations included in the legislation, as well as in the conceptualization of autonomy and the interventions that is considered lawful refuse. The political context and the differential way that "death with dignity" entered the legislative agenda in each period determined the public's construction of the problem and thus the extent and result of the debates.
El artículo examina la producción legislativa sobre derechos de los pacientes terminales en Argentina en dos momentos: los primeros intentos de regular los derechos en el final de la vida (1996) y la sanción de la ley de "muerte digna" en el Congreso Nacional (2011-2012). El análisis comparativo permite observar variaciones en torno a las personas y situaciones incluidas en la legislación, la forma en que se conceptualiza la autonomía y las intervenciones que se considera legítimo rechazar. El contexto político y la forma diferencial en que la "muerte digna" ingresó en la agenda legislativa en cada periodo determinaron la construcción pública del problema y con ello los alcances y el resultado de los debates.
RESUMEN
El artículo examina la producción legislativa sobre derechos de los pacientes terminales en Argentina en dos momentos: los primeros intentos de regular los derechos en el final de la vida (1996) y la sanción de la ley de muerte digna en el Congreso Nacional (2011-2012). El análisis comparativo permite observar variaciones en torno a las personas y situaciones incluidas en la legislación, la forma en que se conceptualiza la autonomía y las intervenciones que se considera legítimo rechazar. El contexto político y la forma diferencial en que la muerte digna ingresó en la agenda legislativa en cada periodo determinaron la construcción pública del problema y con ello los alcances y el resultado de los debates.(AU)
