Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
Support Care Cancer ; 21(5): 1373-81, 2013 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23229653

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. METHODS: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. RESULTS: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients.


Assuntos
Neoplasias/terapia , Nutrição Parenteral no Domicílio/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/epidemiologia , Técnica Delphi , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Incidência , Modelos Logísticos , Neoplasias/patologia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Nutrição Parenteral no Domicílio/métodos , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Qualidade de Vida
3.
Dyn Med ; 6: 7, 2007 Jul 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17610741

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Intestinal failure is the outcome of a number of gastrointestinal diseases and characterized by significant reduction in functional gut mass. If not resolved patients often face long-term nutritional support. This study gathered information about how patients referred with intestinal failure are managed in specialised European centres. METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated in 7 European countries via representatives of the ESPEN-HAN working group to seek information about experience in treating patients with intestinal failure. We asked about clinical outcome, information about structure and organisation of the department, referral criteria, treatment procedures and guidelines. RESULTS: 17 centres in 6 European countries completed the questionnaire: UK, n = 6, France, n = 4, Spain, n = 3, Denmark, n = 2, Italy, n = 1, Poland, n = 1. The experience of the centres in treating patients was in the range 12-30 years. The total number of patients on HPN in all centres was 590. The number of patients referred to centres with intestinal failure during the period January to December 2000 was n = 882: UK, n = 375 (range 2-175), France, n = 308 (range 24-182), Italy and Spain, n = 43 (range 9-52), Denmark n = 51 (range 14-37), the centre in Poland included 53 patients. Comparing all centres the following distribution among patients (median % (range%)) with regard to the endpoints were reported: Oral nutrition 32% (23-50%), enteral/tube feeding 11% (4-23%), HPN 36% (15-57%), lost to follow up 10% (0-35%), dead 9% (5-18%). No patients had an intestinal transplant. CONCLUSION: The study provides information about how patients with intestinal failure are managed across Europe and the data indicates that treatment practice varies between countries.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...