Centros de referencia: Hospital Infantil Miguel Servet / Reference centers: Hospital Infantil Universitario Miguel Servet

No disponible

El nuevo papel del cardiólogo en la unidad coronaria / No disponible

No disponible

Mortality meetings: ethical considerations and adherence to evidence-based practice from 6 years of experience in a mixed cardiac department.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients die unexpectedly in cardiac departments. We analyzed the ethical issues raised by poor outcomes and the leading causes of hospital deaths including organic causes of deaths, system failures, and questionable caregivers' attitudes. METHOD: We analyzed reports from 99 mortality conferences in a mixed cardiac department (surgery and interventional cardiology) where 146 patients died from 2002 to 2008. RESULTS: Patients were referred for cardiac surgery (n=115), interventional cardiology (n=25), or medical therapy (n=11). Highly recommended class I interventions were performed in most patients (n=120, 82%). A history of renal failure (25%), peripheral artery disease (21%), diabetes (18%), cancer (16%), or respiratory disease (16%) was frequently noticed. The areas most frequently identified as potentially problematic were preoperative strategy (58%), surgical technique (50%), monitoring (47%), reactivity (43%), drug prescription (32%), difficulties or delays in diagnosis (27%), and transfer (21%). At least one transgression from routine medical practice was identified in 66 (45%) patients, and a causal relationship between this transgression and the patient's death was suggested in 33 cases (23%). Serious errors were identified for five patients (3%), with a suggested causal relationship to death in two cases. Ethical discussions focused on alternatives in treatment (73%), good medical practice (44%), secondary recommendations (18%), information (12%), consent (12%), non-malfeasance (7%), and equity (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality conferences provide an opportunity to identify many system failures. Poor outcome is multifactorial. Technical and ethical aspects should be considered for quality care improvement.

¿Son válidos los documentos de consentimiento informado que utilizamos en cirugía vascular? / are the informed consent documents we use in vascular surgery valid?

Introducción. La cumplimentación de un documento escrito de consentimiento informado (DCI) antes de realizar intervenciones quirúrgicas o exploraciones invasivas es un requisito ético (código deontológico) y legal (Ley 41/2002 de Autonomía del Paciente). Los DCI deben ser específicos para cada procedimiento y suministrar una información suficiente y comprensible. La información que tiene que contener un DCI está ampliamente consensuada en las fuentes bibliográficas. Las técnicas de análisis de legibilidad validadas para nuestra lengua son un instrumento útil para evaluar qué grado de comprensión del DCI tendrá el ciudadano medio. Objetivo. Valorar si en nuestra especialidad disponemos de DCI adecuados: específicos, comprensibles y con un contenido apropiado. Materiales y métodos. Se recogieron los DCI recomendados por la Sociedad Española de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular y sociedades regionales. Se practicó un análisis de legibilidad mediante tres parámetros validados para ello en castellano: índice de Flesh (IF), de complejidad oracional (ICO) y de legibilidad integrada (LEGIN). Se valoró el contenido según el grado de cumplimiento sobre un total de 15 apartados que deben contener los DCI. Resultados. Se encontraron 16 DCI sobre 10 procedimientos. Ningún DCI cumplía criterios de legibilidad mínima según el IF y seis lo cumplían según el ICO y el LEGIN. Ningún DCI cumplía con todos los requisitos de contenido. Conclusiones. Disponemos de DCI sobre pocos procedimientos. La legibilidad formal de los consentimientos informados analizados es deficiente. Los DCI analizados no cumplen con los requisitos de contenido exigibles a este tipo de documentos. Los DCI analizados no parecen apropiados para dar una correcta información al paciente

Introduction. Patients are required to fill in a written informed consent document (ICD) before undergoing surgical interventions or invasive examinations on both ethical (professional code of conduct) and legal grounds (Autonomía del Paciente Law 41/2002). ICDs must be specific for each procedure and provide an adequate amount of information in an understandable form. There is widespread agreement in the literature about the information that must be included in an ICD. Readability analysis techniques that have been validated for Spanish are a useful instrument for assessing how comprehensible the ICD will be to the average citizen. Aim. To examine whether the ICDs used in our speciality are appropriate, specific and understandable, and contain suitable information. Materials and methods. We collected samples of the ICDs recommended by the SEAVC (Spanish Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery) and regional societies. A readability analysis was performed using three parameters that have been validated for such studies in Spanish: the Flesh index (FI), sentence complexity index (SCI) and integrated readability level index (LEGIN). The content was evaluated according to the extent to which it complied with a total of 15 points that ICDs have to include. Results. In all, 16 ICDs concerned with 10 procedures were found. None of the ICDs met the minimum readability criteria according to the FI and six of them fulfilled SCI and LEGIN criteria. None of the ICDs met all the content criteria. Conclusions. We only have ICDs for a scant number of procedures. The formal readability of the informed consent documents analysed is poor. The ICDs analysed do not comply with the requirements regarding content that this type of documents ought to satisfy. The ICDs examined in this study do not seem to offer patients the information they should be given in this kind of document