Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient. Update. Consensus SEMICYUC-SENPE: Obese patient

As a response to metabolic stress, obese critically-ill patients have the same risk of nutritional deficiency as the non-obese and can develop protein-energy malnutrition with accelerated loss of muscle mass. The primary aim of nutritional support in these patients should be to minimize loss of lean mass and accurately evaluate energy expenditure. However, routinely used formulae can overestimate calorie requirements if the patient's actual weight is used. Consequently, the use of adjusted or ideal weight is recommended with these formulae, although indirect calorimetry is the method of choice. Controversy surrounds the question of whether a strict nutritional support criterion, adjusted to the patient's requirements, should be applied or whether a certain degree of hyponutrition should be allowed. Current evidence suggested that hypocaloric nutrition can improve results, partly due to a lower rate of infectious complications and better control of hyperglycemia. Therefore, hypocaloric and hyperproteic nutrition, whether enteral or parenteral, should be standard practice in the nutritional support of critically-ill obese patients when not contraindicated. Widely accepted recommendations consist of no more than 60-70% of requirements or administration of 11-14 kcal/kg current body weight/day or 22-25 kcal/kg ideal weight/day, with 2-2.5 g/kg ideal weight/day of proteins. In a broad sense, hypocaloric-hyperprotein regimens can be considered specific to obese critically-ill patients, although the complications related to comorbidities in these patients may require other therapeutic possibilities to be considered, with specific nutrients for hyperglycemia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis. However, there are no prospective randomized trials with this type of nutrition in this specific population subgroup and the available data are drawn from the general population of critically-ill patients. Consequently, caution should be exercised when interpreting these data.

How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety

OBJECTIVE: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. DESIGN: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. RESULTS: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. CONCLUSIONS: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.

Sustainable development: changing production patterns, social equity and the environment

Includes bibliography

Report of the first meeting of the focal points appointed by the governments of the signatory countries of the declaration on the application of principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago, 6 and 7 November 2012

Incluye Bibliografía

Report of the second meeting of the focal points appointed by the governments of the signatory countries of the declaration on the application of principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Guadalajara, Mexico, 16 and 17 April 2013

Incluye Bibliografía