Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Am J Emerg Med ; 39: 158-161, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33059983

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Initial recommendations discouraged high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in COVID-19 patients, driven by concern for healthcare worker (HCW) exposure. Noting high morbidity and mortality from early invasive mechanical ventilation, we implemented a COVID-19 respiratory protocol employing HFNC in severe COVID-19 and HCW exposed to COVID-19 patients on HFNC wore N95/KN95 masks. Utilization of HFNC increased significantly but questions remained regarding HCW infection rate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of employee infections in our healthcare system using the Employee Health Services database and unit records of employees tested between March 15, 2020 and May 23, 2020. We assessed the incidence of infections before and after the implementation of the protocol, stratifying by clinical or non-clinical role as well as inpatient COVID-19 unit. RESULTS: During the study period, 13.9% (228/1635) of employees tested for COVID-19 were positive. Forty-six percent of infections were in non-clinical staff. After implementation of the respiratory protocol, the proportion of positive tests in clinical staff (41.5%) was not higher than that in non-clinical staff (43.8%). Of the clinicians working in the high-risk COVID-19 unit, there was no increase in infections after protocol implementation compared with clinicians working in COVID-19 units that did not use HFNC. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of increased COVID-19 infections in HCW after the implementation of a respiratory protocol that increased use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19; however, these results are hypothesis generating.


Assuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Ventilação não Invasiva/métodos , Doenças Profissionais/epidemiologia , Cânula , Humanos , Massachusetts/epidemiologia , Ventilação não Invasiva/instrumentação , Exposição Ocupacional , Estudos Retrospectivos , Centros de Atenção Terciária
2.
J Hosp Med ; 15(12): 734-738, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33231547

RESUMO

As evidence emerged supporting noninvasive strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory distress, we implemented a noninvasive COVID-19 respiratory protocol (NCRP) that encouraged high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and self-proning across our healthcare system. To assess safety, we conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating mortality and other patient safety outcomes after implementation of the NCRP protocol (April 3, 2020, to April 15, 2020) for adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with preimplementation outcomes (March 15, 2020, to April 2, 2020). During the study, there were 469 COVID-19 admissions. Fewer patients underwent intubation after implementation (10.7% [23 of 215]), compared with before implementation (25.2% [64 of 254]) (P < .01). Overall, 26.2% of patients died (24% before implementation vs 28.8% after implementation; P = .14). In patients without a do not resuscitate/do not intubate order prior to admission, mortality was 21.8% before implementation vs 21.9% after implementation. Overall, we found no significant increase in mortality following implementation of a noninvasive respiratory protocol that decreased intubations in patients with COVID-19.


Assuntos
COVID-19/terapia , Cânula , Ventilação não Invasiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Segurança do Paciente , Idoso , COVID-19/mortalidade , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos
4.
Diagnosis (Berl) ; 1(2): 167-171, 2014 Jun 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29539996

RESUMO

Diagnostic errors comprise a critical subset of medical errors and often stem from errors in individual cognition. While traditional patient safety methods for dissecting medical errors focus on faulty systems, such methods are often less useful in cases of diagnostic error, and a broader cognitive framework is needed to ensure a comprehensive analysis of these complex events. The fishbone diagram is a widely utilized patient safety tool that helps to facilitate root cause analysis discussions. This tool was expanded by the authors to reflect the contributions of both systems and individual cognitive errors to diagnostic errors. We describe how two medical centers have applied this modified fishbone diagram to approach diagnostic errors in a way that better meets the patient safety and educational needs of their respective institutions.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA