ABSTRACT
Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Humans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Consensus , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , Interdisciplinary Communication , Positive-Pressure RespirationABSTRACT
Objetivos. Diseñar una escala de puntuación multidimensional con el fin de estratificar el riesgo de mortalidad a 180 días entre los ancianos ingresados en las unidades de corta estancia (UCE). Métodos. Estudio analítico observacional de cohortes prospectivo multicéntrico que seleccionó todos los pacientes >= 75 años ingresados en 5 UCE españolas del 1 de febrero al 30 de abril de 2014. Se recogieron variables demográficas, clínicas y de la valoración geriátrica. Se derivó un modelo de regresión logística multinivel para identificar los factores independientemente asociados con la mortalidad a 180 días y después se construyó una escala de puntuación. Resultados. Se incluyeron 593 pacientes (edad media 83,4 años, DE: 5,9; 359 mujeres, 60,7%), y 92 (15,5%) fallecieron a los 180 días. La escala de puntuación 6M UCE-SCORE incluyó la edad >= 85 años (1 punto), sexo varón (1 punto), presencia de pérdida de apetito o peso involuntaria en los últimos 3 meses (1 punto), síndrome confusional agudo (2 puntos), dependencia en las actividades básicas de la vida diaria al ingreso (2 puntos) y úlceras por presión (2 puntos). Se categorizó a los pacientes en bajo (0-2 puntos), intermedio (3-5 puntos) y alto (6-9 puntos) riesgo, con una mortalidad a 180 días de 5%, 18% y 54%, respectivamente. El ABC COR del modelo tras remuestreo fue de 0,72 (IC95%: 0,65-0,78). Conclusiones. La escala de puntuación 6M UCE-SCORE podría ser de utilidad a la hora de estratificar el riesgo a 6 meses entre los ancianos ingresados en las UCE con el fin de diseñar un plan individualizado de cuidados
Objectives. To develop a multidimensional score to assess risk of death for patients of advanced age 180 days after their admission to short-stay units (SSUs). Methods. Prospective, multicenter, observational and analytical study of a cohort of patients aged 75 years or older who were admitted to 5 Spanish SSUs between February 1 and April 30, 2014. We recorded demographic and clinical data as well as geriatric assessment scores. A multilevel logistic regression model was developed to identify independent factors associated with 180-day mortality. The model was used to construct a scale for scoring risk. Results. Data for 593 patients with a mean (SD) age of 83.4 (5.9) years entered the model; 359 (60.7%) were women. Ninety-two patients (15.5%) died within 180 days of SSU admission. Factors included in the final risk score were age over 85 years (1 point), male sex (1), loss of appetite or weight loss in the 3 months before admission (1), acute confusional state (2), functional dependence for basic activities of daily living at admission (2), and pressure ulcers (2). Low risk was indicated by a score of 0 to 2 points, intermediate risk by 3 to 5 points, and high risk by 6 to 9 points. Mortality rates at 180 days in these 3 risk groups were 5%, 18%, and 54%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model after boots trapping was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78). Conclusion. The SSU score could be useful for stratifying risk of death within 6 months of SSU admission of older patients, so that type of care can be tailored to risk
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitals, University , Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Cohort Studies , Observational StudyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To develop a multidimensional score to assess risk of death for patients of advanced age 180 days after their admission to short-stay units (SSUs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, observational and analytical study of a cohort of patients aged 75 years or older who were admitted to 5 Spanish SSUs between February 1 and April 30, 2014. We recorded demographic and clinical data as well as geriatric assessment scores. A multilevel logistic regression model was developed to identify independent factors associated with 180-day mortality. The model was used to construct a scale for scoring risk. RESULTS: Data for 593 patients with a mean (SD) age of 83.4 (5.9) years entered the model; 359 (60.7%) were women. Ninety-two patients (15.5%) died within 180 days of SSU admission. Factors included in the final risk score were age over 85 years (1 point), male sex (1), loss of appetite or weight loss in the 3 months before admission (1), acute confusional state (2), functional dependence for basic activities of daily living at admission (2), and pressure ulcers (2). Low risk was indicated by a score of 0 to 2 points, intermediate risk by 3 to 5 points, and high risk by 6 to 9 points. Mortality rates at 180 days in these 3 risk groups were 5%, 18%, and 54%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model after boots trapping was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78). CONCLUSION: The SSU score could be useful for stratifying risk of death within 6 months of SSU admission of older patients, so that type of care can be tailored to risk.
OBJETIVO: Diseñar una escala de puntuación multidimensional con el fin de estratificar el riesgo de mortalidad a 180 días entre los ancianos ingresados en las unidades de corta estancia (UCE). METODO: Estudio analítico observacional de cohortes prospectivo multicéntrico que seleccionó todos los pacientes 75 años ingresados en 5 UCE españolas del 1 de febrero al 30 de abril de 2014. Se recogieron variables demográficas, clínicas y de la valoración geriátrica. Se derivó un modelo de regresión logística multinivel para identificar los factores independientemente asociados con la mortalidad a 180 días y después se construyó una escala de puntuación. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 593 pacientes (edad media 83,4 años, DE: 5,9; 359 mujeres, 60,7%), y 92 (15,5%) fallecieron a los 180 días. La escala de puntuación 6M UCE-SCORE incluyó la edad 85 años (1 punto), sexo varón (1 punto), presencia de pérdida de apetito o peso involuntaria en los últimos 3 meses (1 punto), síndrome confusional agudo (2 puntos), dependencia en las actividades básicas de la vida diaria al ingreso (2 puntos) y úlceras por presión (2 puntos). Se categorizó a los pacientes en bajo (0-2 puntos), intermedio (3-5 puntos) y alto (6-9 puntos) riesgo, con una mortalidad a 180 días de 5%, 18% y 54%, respectivamente. El ABC COR del modelo tras remuestreo fue de 0,72 (IC95%: 0,65-0,78). CONCLUSIONES: La escala de puntuación 6M UCE-SCORE podría ser de utilidad a la hora de estratificar el riesgo a 6 meses entre los ancianos ingresados en las UCE con el fin de diseñar un plan individualizado de cuidados.
Subject(s)
Decision Support Techniques , Hospital Mortality , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospital Units , Humans , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Prospective Studies , ROC Curve , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SpainABSTRACT
Objetivo: Comparar los resultados de gestión clínica de las unidades de corta estancia (UCE) según su dependencia funcional. Metodología: Estudio de análisis transversal realizado en 40 hospitales con UCE (1 junio-31 diciembre 2012). Se recogieron datos de actividad y gestión clínica, considerando como variables directamente relacionadas con la eficiencia la estancia media, el índice de rotación por cama y el porcentaje de altas en fin de semana. Resultados: Se analizaron 40 UCE, 25 (62,5%) dependientes del servicio de urgencias (UCEU), 9 (22,5%) de medicina interna (UCEMI), 5 (12,5%) independientes (UCEI) y 1 con dependencia mixta (UCEU + UCEMI). El número total de altas fue de 45.140. Los diagnósticos más frecuentes fueron la exacerbación de la patología crónica cardiaca y respiratoria, la infección urinaria y la respiratoria. En relación a su dependencia funcional no se observaron diferencias en los parámetros analizados intergrupos salvo en la edad media (UCEI 75,6 años vs UCEU 67,2 vs UCEMI 57,8; p = 0,02). Al realizar la comparación intragrupos, la estancia media fue menor en las UCEU que las UCEMI (2,65 días vs 3,73;p = 0,047) y la mortalidad global menor en las UCEMI que las UCEU (0,64% vs 3%; p = 0,033), pero sin diferencias al comparar la mortalidad no esperada una vez excluidos los pacientes paliativos y/o en situación de últimas horas. Conclusión: En la serie analizada no se observan diferencias destacables al comparar las UCE en conjunto según dependencia funcional. Sin embargo, en el análisis intragrupos las UCEU lograron menor estancia media que las UCEMI (AU)
Objective: To compare the efficiency of short-stay units (SSUs) managed by different departments within hospitals. Methods: Cross-sectional study in 40 hospitals with SSUs. From June 1 to December 31, 2012,we gathered data on clinical caseloads and management. Variables directly related to efficiency were mean length of stay, bed rotation index, and weekend discharge rate. Results: Forty SSUs were studied; 25 (62.5%) were managed by the hospital's emergency department (ED), 9 (22.5%) were managed by the internal medicine department (IMD), 5 (12.5%) were independent, and 1 was jointly managed by the hospitals ED and the IMD. A total of 45 140 patients were discharged from the SSUs. The most common diagnoses were exacerbation of chronic heart or respiratory disease, urinary tract infection, and respiratory infection. Age was the only variable that was related to the hospital department designated to manage these SSUs. The mean ages by management type were as follows: independent SSUs (75.6 years) vs ED-managed SSUs (67.2 years) vs IMD-managed SSUs(57.8 years) (P=.02). Group-by-group comparisons showed that the mean length of stay was shorter in ED-managed SSUs than in IMD-managed units (2.65 vs 3.73 respectively; P=.047), and overall mortality was lower in IMD-managed SSUs than in ED-managed SSUs (0.64% vs 3%; P=.033). However, unforeseen mortality (after excluding patients under palliative care or judged to be in the final hours of life) did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: We did not detect important differences between SSUs managed by different departments in the hospitals in this series. However, mean length of stay was found to be shorter in ED-managed SSUs than in IMD-managed un (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Treatment/methods , Patient Care Management/organization & administration , /trends , Hospital Units/organization & administration , 34921ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiency of short-stay units (SSUs) managed by different departments within hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 40 hospitals with SSUs. From June 1 to December 31, 2012,we gathered data on clinical caseloads and management. Variables directly related to efficiency were mean length of stay, bed rotation index, and weekend discharge rate. RESULTS: Forty SSUs were studied; 25 (62.5%) were managed by the hospital's emergency department (ED), 9 (22.5%) were managed by the internal medicine department (IMD), 5 (12.5%) were independent, and 1 was jointly managed by the hospital's ED and the IMD. A total of 45 140 patients were discharged from the SSUs. The most common diagnoses were exacerbation of chronic heart or respiratory disease, urinary tract infection, and respiratory infection. Age was the only variable that was related to the hospital department designated to manage these SSUs. The mean ages by management type were as follows: independent SSUs (75.6 years) vs ED-managed SSUs (67.2 years) vs IMD-managed SSUs (57.8 years) (P=.02). Group-by-group comparisons showed that the mean length of stay was shorter in ED-managed SSUs than in IMD-managed units (2.65 vs 3.73 respectively; P=.047), and overall mortality was lower in IMD-managed SSUs than in ED-managed SSUs (0.64% vs 3%; P=.033). However, unforeseen mortality (after excluding patients under palliative care or judged to be in the final hours of life) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: We did not detect important differences between SSUs managed by different departments in the hospitals in this series. However, mean length of stay was found to be shorter in ED-managed SSUs than in IMD-managed units.
OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados de gestión clínica de las unidades de corta estancia (UCE) según su dependencia funcional. METODO: Estudio de análisis transversal realizado en 40 hospitales con UCE (1 junio-31 diciembre 2012). Se recogieron datos de actividad y gestión clínica, considerando como variables directamente relacionadas con la eficiencia la estancia media, el índice de rotación por cama y el porcentaje de altas en fin de semana. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 40 UCE, 25 (62,5%) dependientes del servicio de urgencias (UCEU), 9 (22,5%) de medicina interna (UCEMI), 5 (12,5%) independientes (UCEI) y 1 con dependencia mixta (UCEU + UCEMI). El número total de altas fue de 45.140. Los diagnósticos más frecuentes fueron la exacerbación de la patología crónica cardiaca y respiratoria, la infección urinaria y la respiratoria. En relación a su dependencia funcional no se observaron diferencias en los parámetros analizados intergrupos salvo en la edad media (UCEI 75,6 años vs UCEU 67,2 vs UCEMI 57,8; p = 0,02). Al realizar la comparación intragrupos, la estancia media fue menor en las UCEU que las UCEMI (2,65 días vs 3,73; p = 0,047) y la mortalidad global menor en las UCEMI que las UCEU (0,64% vs 3%; p = 0,033), pero sin diferencias al comparar la mortalidad no esperada una vez excluidos los pacientes paliativos y/o en situación de últimas horas. CONCLUSIONES: En la serie analizada no se observan diferencias destacables al comparar las UCE en conjunto según dependencia funcional. Sin embargo, en el análisis intragrupos las UCEU lograron menor estancia media que las UCEMI.
ABSTRACT
Objetivo: El proyecto REGICE analiza las unidades de corta estancia (UCE) en España. El estudio REGICE 2 ofrece información sobre actividad y gestión clínica. Método: Estudio transversal basado en una encuesta a los 48 hospitales con UCE que participaron en el estudio REGICE 1. Se realizó mediante un formulario estandarizado que se envió vía electrónica al médico de contacto de cada UCE entre el 1 de junio y el 31 de diciembre de 2012, con inclusión de datos sobre actividad y gestión clínica. Resultados: Cuarenta UCE participaron en el estudio REGICE 2. El número de ingresos fue 45.140, la estancia media global 3,05 (1,28) días y la edad media de los pacientes 66,7 (10,4) años. El porcentaje de altas a domicilio fue del 80,6%, la mortalidad global intrahospitalaria del 2,8% y de reingreso a los 30 días del 6,1%. La exacerbación de la patología cardiaca y respiratoria crónicas y la infección urinaria y respiratoria fueron uno de los primeros tres diagnósticos en el 72,5% de UCE. Conclusiones: Las UCE constituyen una alternativa a la hospitalización convencional y responden a la necesidad de ingreso urgente en pacientes con patología de alta prevalencia con buenos resultados en términos de actividad, eficacia y seguridad. Son necesarios futuros trabajos que determinen los estándares de calidad de estas unidades
Background and objective: The aim of the REGICE (Register of Short-Stay Units in Spain) project is to describe the real situation of short-stay units in Spanish hospitals. The second REGICE study analyzed information on short-stay units' caseloads and clinical management practices. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to the 48 hospitals with short-stay units that participated in the REGICE 1 study. The standardized data collection instrument was emailed to the contact person at each short-stay unit between June 1 and December 31, 2012. Items asked about the unit's caseload and clinical management practices. Results: Forty short-stay units responded to the REGICE 2 survey. A total of 45140 admissions were made (mean [SD] length of stay, 3.05 [1.28] days; mean age, 66.7 [10.4] years). The units discharged 80.6% of the patients to home, in-hospital mortality was 2.8%, and the 30-day readmission rate was 6.1%. The diagnostic-related groups that 72.5% of the units ranked among their first 3 reasons for admissions involved exacerbation of heart disease or chronic respiratory disease and urinary tract or respiratory infection. Conclusions: Short-stay units offer an alternative to conventional hospital admission. They answer a need for urgent admission of patients with highly prevalent conditions and give good results, allowing hospitals to manage caseloads safely and effectively. Further studies of quality standards in these units are necessary