2 resultados para pressure ulcer
em Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga
Resumo:
Las úlceras por presión representan un importante problema de salud pública y tienen un importante impacto económico en los sistemas de salud. La mayoría de los estudios para prevenir las úlceras por presión se han llevado a cabo en contextos hospitalarios, usando ácidos grasos hiperoxigenados (AGHO) y hasta la fecha, no se ha realizado ningún estudio específico con aceite de oliva virgen extra (AOVE) en el entorno domiciliario. Material y método Objetivo principal: evaluar si la utilización de AOVE no es inferior a los AGHO en la prevención de úlceras por presión (UPP) en pacientes inmovilizados en el entorno domiciliario. Diseño: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico, paralelo, a triple ciego, de no inferioridad. Ámbito: Población consultante de centros de salud andaluces. Muestra: 831 pacientes inmovilizados en riesgo de padecer UPP. Resultados El período de seguimiento fue de 16 semanas. En el análisis por protocolo, ninguna de las zonas evaluadas presentó diferencias de riesgo de incidencia de las úlceras por presión que superasen el valor delta establecido (10%). Sacro: AOVE 8 (2,55%) vs AGHO 8 (3,08%), RAR 0,53 (-2,2 a 3,26). Talón derecho: AOVE 4 (1,27%) vs AGHO 5 (1,92)%, RAR 0,65 (-1,43 a 2,73). Talón izquierdo: AOVE 3 (0,96%) vs AGHO 3 (1,15%), RAR 0.2 (-1,49 a 1,88). Trocánter Derecho: AOVE 0 (0%) vs AGHO 4 (1,54%), RAR 1,54 (0,04-3,03). Trocánter izquierdo: AOVE 1 (0,32%) vs AGHO 1 (0,38%), RAR 0.07 (-0,91 a 1,04). Discusión Este ensayo clínico pretendía evaluar si la prevención de las UPP usando una fórmula de AOVE no era inferior a la prevención de UPP con el uso AGHO, en el entorno domiciliario y con pacientes inmovilizados de alto riesgo. Los resultados han mostrado esta no inferioridad al no observarse diferencias que hayan superado el límite inferior del intervalo de confianza y convierte al aceite de oliva en un producto eficaz para la prevención de UPP en este tipo de pacientes. Se necesitan más estudios para investigar el mecanismo de acción del AOVE en la prevención de las UPP y relacionarlo con la etiopatogenia de éstas. Bibliografía 1. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Nelson EA, Briggs M, Schoonhoven L, Dealey C, et al. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Jul;57(7):1175–83. 2. Yamamoto Y, Hayashino Y, Higashi T, Matsui M, Yamazaki S, Takegami M, et al. Keeping vulnerable elderly patients free from pressure ulcer is associated with high caregiver burden in informal caregivers. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Jun;16(3):585–9. 3. Hanson D, Langemo DK, Anderson J, Thompson P, Hunter S. Friction and shear considerations in pressure ulcer development. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2010 Jan;23(1):21–4. 4. Soldevilla Agreda JJ, Torra i Bou J-E, Verdú Soriano J, López Casanova P. 3.er Estudio Nacional de Prevalencia de Úlceras por Presión en España, 2009: Epidemiología y variables definitorias de las lesiones y pacientes. Gerokomos. 2011 Jun;22(2):77–90. 5. Kottner J, Lahmann N, Dassen T. [Pressure ulcer prevalence: comparison between nursing homes and hospitals]. Pflege Z. 2010 Apr;63(4):228–31. 6. Wilborn D, Halfens R, Dassen T, Tannen A. [Pressure ulcer prevalence in German nursing homes and hospitals: what role does the National Nursing Expert Standard Prevention of Pressure Ulcer play?]. Gesundheitswesen Bundesverb Ärzte Öffentl Gesundheitsdienstes Ger. 2010 Apr;72(4):240–5. 7. Tubaishat A, Anthony D, Saleh M. Pressure ulcers in Jordan: a point prevalence study. J Tissue Viability. 2011 Feb;20(1):14–9. 8. James J, Evans JA, Young T, Clark M. Pressure ulcer prevalence across Welsh orthopaedic units and community hospitals: surveys based on the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set. Int Wound J. 2010 Jun;7(3):147–52. 9. Defloor T, Schoonhoven L, Katrien V, Weststrate J, Myny D. Reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system. J Adv Nurs. 2006 Apr;54(2):189–98
Resumo:
Background: Complex chronic diseases are a challenge for the current configuration of Health services. Case management is a service frequently provided for people with chronic conditions and despite its effectiveness in many outcomes, such as mortality or readmissions, uncertainty remains about the most effective form of team organization, structures, and the nature of the interventions. Many processes and outcomes of case management for people with complex chronic conditions cannot be addressed with the information provided by electronic clinical records. Registries are frequently used to deal with this weakness. The aim of this study was to generate a registry-based information system of patients receiving case management to identify their clinical characteristics, their context of care, events identified during their follow-up, interventions developed by case managers, and services used. Methods and design: The study was divided into three phases, covering the detection of information needs, the design and its implementation in the healthcare system, using literature review and expert consensus methods to select variables that would be included in the registry. Objective: To describe the essential characteristics of the provision of ca re lo people who receive case management (structure, process and outcomes), with special emphasis on those with complex chronic diseases. Study population: Patients from any District of Primary Care, who initiate the utilization of case management services, to avoid information bias that may occur when including subjects who have already been received the service, and whose outcomes and characteristics could not be properly collected. Results: A total of 102 variables representing structure, processes and outcomes of case management were selected for their inclusion in the registry after the consensus phase. Total sample was composed of 427 patients, of which 211 (49.4%) were women and 216 (50.6%) were men. The average functional level (Barthel lndex) was 36.18 (SD 29.02), cognitive function (Pfeiffer) showed an average of 4.37 {SD 6.57), Chat1son Comorbidity lndex, obtained a mean of 3.03 (SD 2.7) and Social Support (Duke lndex) was 34.2 % (SD 17.57). More than half of patients include in the Registry, correspond lo immobilized or transitional care for patients discharged from hospital (66.5 %). The patient's educational level was low or very low (50.4%). Caregivers overstrain (Caregiver stress index), obtained an average value of 6.09% (SD 3.53). Only 1.2 % of patients had declared their advanced directives, 58.6 had not defined the tutelage and the vast majority lived at home 98.8 %. Regarding the major events recorded at RANGE Registry, 25.8 % of the selected patients died in the first three months, 8.2 % suffered a hospital admission at least once time, 2.3%, two times, and 1.2% three times, 7.5% suffered a fall, 8.7% had pressure ulcer, 4.7% had problems with medication, and 3.3 % were institutionalized. Stroke is the more prevalent health problem recorded (25.1%), followed by hypertension (11.1%) and COPD (11.1%). Patients registered by NCMs had as main processes diabetes (16.8%) and dementia (11.3 %). The most frequent nursing diagnoses referred to the self-care deficit in various activities of daily living. Regarding to nursing interventions, described by the Nursing Intervention Classification (NIC), dementia management is the most used intervention, followed by mutual goal setting, caregiver and emotional support. Conclusions: The patient profile who receive case management services is a chronic complex patient with severe dependence, cognitive impairment, normal social support, low educational level, health problems such as stroke, hypertension or COPD, diabetes or dementia, and has an informal caregiver. At the first follow up, mortality was 19.2%, and a discrete rate of readmissions and falls.