Nutritional status in children with esophageal stenosis and dysphagia associated with caustic ingestion

Introduction: Caustic ingestion (CI) in children and adolescents may lead to esophageal burns, esophageal stenosis and secondary dysphagia. These complications may limit the normal feeding process leading to malnutrition and growth impairment. Aims: Our aim was to evaluate the nutritional status and its association with dysphagia and esophageal stenosis in children with CI. Methods: Sixty-two patients with caustic ingestion treated at a pediatric referral hospital were included in this cross-sectional study. Independent variables were dysphagia/normal swallowing and esophageal stenosis/normal barium-swallow. The dependent variables were growth and nutritional status evaluated by anthropometry. Analysis: χ² test, OR, 95% CI, kappa test and Student's t-test. Results: The average age at the time of CI was 39.7 months; 38.7% of the patients were girls. Endoscopy performed upon admission revealed erosive esophagitis (II-b, III-a, and III-b) in 46 (77.8%) of the patients, dysphagia in twenty-four (38.7%) and esophageal stenosis in forty (64.5%). Both complications occurred simultaneously in 20 children (32.3%, kappa = 0.3, p = 0.014). The z-score of height-for-age was below -2 SD in five children (8.1%). The z score of body mass index (BMI) was < -2 SD in three children (4.8%) and it was above +1 SD in 24.2%. The z-score means of the arm anthropometric indicators of fat stores and muscle mass in both the dysphagia and esophageal stenosis groups were located in the negative area of the z-score curve and their values differed significantly from the z-scores of the non-dysphagia and non-stenosis groups. Conclusions: The proportion of erosive esophagitis, esophageal stenosis and dysphagia was high. Children with dysphagia and/or esophageal stenosis associated with CI had lower fat stores and muscle mass than the cases without esophageal complications.

The Spanish online program "Educar en Positivo" ("The Positive Parent"): whom does it benefit the most?

This study evaluated the Spanish online program 'Educar en Positivo' ("The Positive Parent") (http://educarenpositivo.es). Eighty-five users were surveyed to examine changes in views of online parenting support and satisfaction with the module completed, as a function of their sociodemographic profile, their level of experience with the Internet, and their general and educational use of Internet resources. Results showed that parents changed their views of online support, the benefits thereof, and their parenting skills. Participants reported high satisfaction with the program's usability, the module content, and their perception of parental self-efficacy. These findings are moderated by level of Internet experience and educational use of web-based resources, suggesting that improving parents' digital literacy and promoting Internet use may be an effective avenue for improving access to prevention resources. In sum, this program offers a space for Spanish-speaking parents to learn and exchange experiences, thereby filling a gap in ensuring the promotion of positive parenting in this large community of potential users.

Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.