Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 52
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33060189

RESUMO

IMPORTANCE: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a complete physical isolation has been worldwide introduced. The impossibility of visiting their loved ones during the hospital stay causes additional distress for families: in addition to the worries about clinical recovery, they may feel exclusion and powerlessness, anxiety, depression, mistrust in the care team and post-traumatic stress disorder. The impossibility of conducting the daily meetings with families poses a challenge for healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to delineate and share consensus statements in order to enable healthcare team to provide by telephone or video calls an optimal level of communication with patient's relatives under circumstances of complete isolation. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness and the AHCPR Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Reports were explored from 1999 to 2019. Exclusion criteria were: poor or absent relevance regarding the aim of the consensus statements, studies prior to 1999, non-English language. Since the present pandemic context is completely new, unexpected and unexplored, there are not randomised controlled trials regarding clinical communication in a setting of complete isolation. Thus, a multiprofessional taskforce of physicians, nurses, psychologists and legal experts, together with some family members and former intensive care unit patients was established by four Italian national scientific societies. Using an e-Delphi methodology, general and specific questions were posed, relevant topics were argumented, until arriving to delineate position statements and practical checklist, which were set and evaluated through an evidence-based consensus procedure. FINDINGS: Ten statements and two practical checklists for phone or video calls were drafted and evaluated; they are related to who, when, why and how family members must be given clinical information under circumstances of complete isolation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The statements and the checklists offer a structured methodology in order to ensure a good-quality communication between healthcare team and family members even in isolation, confirming that time dedicated to communication has to be intended as a time of care.

5.
Recenti Prog Med ; 111(4): 207-211, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Italiano | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-110237

RESUMO

On February 21st, 2020 the first case of severe acute respiratory syndrome due to the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the CoViD-19 disease, was identified in Italy. In the following days, despite the restrictive public health measures aimed to avoid the infection's spread, the number of cases increased. As of March 8th, 2020, Italy is the 2nd most affected country in the world. As of March 6th, 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) published operational recommendations and ethical considerations to support the clinicians involved in the care of critically-ill CoViD-19 patients, in regard a probable scenario where an imbalance between supply and demand of ICU beds, is put in place by a steadily rising number of these patients.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Cuidados Críticos , Tomada de Decisões/ética , Recursos em Saúde , Número de Leitos em Hospital , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Alocação de Recursos , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Cuidados Críticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Recursos em Saúde/ética , Humanos , Itália , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Alocação de Recursos/ética
7.
Recenti Prog Med ; 111(4): 207-211, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Italiano | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32319442

RESUMO

On February 21st, 2020 the first case of severe acute respiratory syndrome due to the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the CoViD-19 disease, was identified in Italy. In the following days, despite the restrictive public health measures aimed to avoid the infection's spread, the number of cases increased. As of March 8th, 2020, Italy is the 2nd most affected country in the world. As of March 6th, 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) published operational recommendations and ethical considerations to support the clinicians involved in the care of critically-ill CoViD-19 patients, in regard a probable scenario where an imbalance between supply and demand of ICU beds, is put in place by a steadily rising number of these patients.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Cuidados Críticos , Tomada de Decisões/ética , Recursos em Saúde , Número de Leitos em Hospital , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Alocação de Recursos , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Cuidados Críticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Recursos em Saúde/ética , Humanos , Itália , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Alocação de Recursos/ética
12.
JAMA ; : 1-12, 2019 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31577037

RESUMO

Importance: End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time. Objective: To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision. Exposures: Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists. Results: Of 13 625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P < .001) and the proportion of female patients was similar (39.6% vs 38.7%; P = .58). Significantly more treatment limitations occurred in the 2015-2016 cohort compared with the 1999-2000 cohort (1601 [89.7%] vs 1918 [68.3%]; difference, 21.4% [95% CI, 19.2% to 23.6%]; P < .001), with more withholding of life-prolonging therapy (892 [50.0%] vs 1143 [40.7%]; difference, 9.3% [95% CI, 6.4% to 12.3%]; P < .001), more withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy (692 [38.8%] vs 695 [24.8%]; difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 11.2% to 16.8%]; P < .001), less failed CPR (110 [6.2%] vs 628 [22.4%]; difference, -16.2% [95% CI, -18.1% to -14.3%]; P < .001), less brain death (74 [4.1%] vs 261 [9.3%]; difference, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.6% to -3.8%]; P < .001) and less active shortening of the dying process (17 [1.0%] vs 80 [2.9%]; difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -2.7% to -1.1%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who had treatment limitations or died in 22 European ICUs in 2015-2016, compared with data reported from the same ICUs in 1999-2000, limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly more frequently and death without limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly less frequently. These findings suggest a shift in end-of-life practices in European ICUs, but the study is limited in that it excluded patients who survived ICU hospitalization without treatment limitations.

13.
JAMA ; 322(3): 216-228, 2019 07 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31310297

RESUMO

Importance: The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium. Design, Setting and Participants: Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours (<4.5 hours per day) in Brazil. Participants were recruited from April 2017 to June 2018, with follow-up until July 2018. Interventions: Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory). Results: Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9]; P < .001). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was not significantly different between flexible and restricted visitation (18.9% vs 20.1%; adjusted difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -6.1% to 2.7%]; P = .44). Among 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 did not differ significantly between flexible and restricted visitation, including ICU-acquired infections (3.7% vs 4.5%; adjusted difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.1% to 1.0%]; P = .38) and staff burnout (22.0% vs 24.8%; adjusted difference, -3.8% [95% CI, -4.8% to 12.5%]; P = .36). For family members, median anxiety (6.0 vs 7.0; adjusted difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.9]; P < .001) and depression scores (4.0 vs 5.0; adjusted difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4]; P = .003) were significantly better with flexible visitation. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932358.


Assuntos
Delírio/prevenção & controle , Família/psicologia , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/organização & administração , Visitas a Pacientes , Ansiedade , Brasil , Esgotamento Profissional , Cuidados Críticos/psicologia , Estudos Cross-Over , Depressão , Feminino , Educação em Saúde , Hospitalização , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Tempo
16.
BMJ Open ; 8(4): e021193, 2018 04 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29654049

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Flexible intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours have been proposed as a means to improve patient-centred and family-centred care. However, randomised trials evaluating the effects of flexible family visitation models (FFVMs) are scarce. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of an FFVM versus a restrictive family visitation model (RFVM) on delirium prevention among ICU patients, as well as to analyse its potential effects on family members and ICU professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster-randomised crossover trial involving adult ICU patients, family members and ICU professionals will be conducted. Forty medical-surgical Brazilian ICUs with RFVMs (<4.5 hours/day) will be randomly assigned to either an RFVM (visits according to local policies) or an FFVM (visitation during 12 consecutive hours per day) group at a 1:1 ratio. After enrolment and follow-up of 25 patients, each ICU will be switched over to the other visitation model, until 25 more patients per site are enrolled and followed. The primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of delirium among ICU patients, measured twice a day using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Secondary outcome measures will include daily hazard of delirium, ventilator-free days, any ICU-acquired infections, ICU length of stay and hospital mortality among the patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression and satisfaction among the family members; and prevalence of burnout symptoms among the ICU professionals. Tertiary outcomes will include need for antipsychotic agents and/or mechanical restraints, coma-free days, unplanned loss of invasive devices and ICU-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection or bloodstream infection among the patients; self-perception of involvement in patient care among the family members; and satisfaction among the ICU professionals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the research ethics committee of all participant institutions. We aim to disseminate the findings through conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02932358.


Assuntos
Delírio , Relações Familiares , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Visitas a Pacientes , Adulto , Brasil , Estudos Cross-Over , Delírio/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA