ABSTRACT
In April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic became a severe threat to long-term care facility patients worldwide. A national front was urgently organized to integrate regional oversight and workgroups, coordinate activities, and develop educational materials, meetings, and communication strategies with these institutions in Brazil. As of August 2021, the front's initiatives have demonstrated its relevance for helping long-term care facilities cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as for the ongoing struggle to include this issue in the public agenda, given that these facilities are an indispensable link in the development of a national policy for continuing care. This paper describes the history and initiatives of the National Front for Strengthening Long-Term Care Facilities regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as its successful volunteer initiatives regarding the care of institutionalized older adults.
Em abril de 2020, a pandemia de COVID-19 trouxe graves ameaças de morbidade e mortalidade aos residentes de instituições de longa permanência para idosos (ILPI) em âmbito internacional. No Brasil, em caráter de urgência, fez-se então necessária a organização de uma frente nacional que integrasse, por meio de coordenações regionais e de grupos de trabalho, as diferentes ações e desenvolvimento de materiais educativos, lives e estratégias de interlocução com essas instituições. Com as produções feitas até agosto de 2021, constata-se a relevância do apoio às ILPI no enfrentamento da COVID-19, bem como da luta permanente por sua inclusão na pauta pública, como um imprescindível lócus do cuidado à pessoa idosa, atrelado à construção de uma política nacional de cuidados continuados. Apresentam-se neste artigo o histórico e a atuação da Frente Nacional de Fortalecimento às Instituições de Longa Permanência para Idosos (FN-ILPI) no enfrentamento da pandemia de COVID-19, além das ações exitosas de mobilização voluntária da sociedade civil no cuidado à pessoa idosa institucionalizada.
Subject(s)
Humans , Aged , National Health Strategies , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Services for the Aged , Homes for the AgedABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the prevalence and risk factors for incontinence-associated dermatitis in the elderly. Method: Cross-sectional exploratory study carried out in public hospitals. The dermatitis prevalence and associations were obtained by calculating the ratio. The effect dimension was estimated by the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance p <0.05. Results: 138 elderly people were included, with an average age of 77.2 years old (± 9.3); 69 (50%) had combined fecal and urinary incontinence. The dermatitis prevalence was 36.2% (50); 28% (14) had pressure injuries; 14% (7), candidiasis. Risk factors were: longer hospital stay (Odds Ratio = 5.8 [2.6-12.9]), obesity (Odds Ratio = 3.6 [1.2-10.4]), high level of dependence (Odds Ratio = 2.4 [1,1-5,0]) and high risk for pressure injury (Odds Ratio = 6.1 [1,4-26,9]). Conclusion: The study found a high prevalence of dermatitis associated with incontinence. The early recognition of risk factors favors effective preventive actions.
RESUMEN Objetivo: Determinar prevalencia y factores de riesgo para dermatitis relacionada a la incontinencia y sus relaciones en ancianos. Método: Estudio transversal exploratorio con ancianos incontinentes en hospitales públicos. Se obtuvo la prevalencia de la dermatitis y relaciones por el cálculo de la razón, y la dimensión del efecto ha sido estimada por la razón de oportunidades con intervalo de confianza de 95% y significación estadística p < 0,05. Resultados: Se incluyeron 138 ancianos, la edad promedio de 77,2 años (± 9,3); 69 (50%) de ellos, con incontinencia fecal y urinaria combinadas. La prevalencia de dermatitis ha sido 36,2% (50); 28% (14) presentaban lesión por presión; y 14% (7), candidosis. Han sido factores de riesgo para la dermatitis: mayor tiempo de internación (OR = 5,8 [2,6-12,9]), obesidad (OR = 3,6 [1,2-10,4]), alto nivel de dependencia (OR = 2,4 [1,1-5,0]) y alto riesgo para lesión por presión (OR = 6,1 [1,4-26,9]). Conclusiones: Hubo alta prevalencia de dermatitis relacionada a la incontinencia, y el reconocimiento precoz de los factores de riesgo pode favorecer acciones preventivas efectivas.
RESUMO Objetivo: Determinar prevalência e fatores de risco para dermatite associada à incontinência em idosos. Método: Estudo transversal exploratório realizado em hospitais públicos. Obtevese prevalência da dermatite e associações pelo cálculo da razão. A dimensão do efeito foi estimada pela razão de chances com intervalo de confiança de 95% e significância estatística p < 0,05. Resultados: Incluíram-se 138 idosos, média de idade 77,2 anos (± 9,3); 69 (50%) com incontinência fecal e urinária combinadas. A prevalência de dermatite foi 36,2% (50); 28% (14) apresentavam lesão por pressão; 14% (7), candidose. Foram fatores de risco: maior tempo de internação (Odds Ratio = 5,8 [2,6-12,9]), obesidade (Odds Ratio = 3,6 [1,2-10,4]), alto nível de dependência (Odds Ratio = 2,4 [1,1-5,0]) e alto risco para lesão por pressão (Odds Ratio = 6,1 [1,4-26,9]). Conclusão: Houve alta prevalência de dermatite associada à incontinência. O reconhecimento precoce dos fatores de risco favorece ações preventivas efetivas.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification.METHOD:A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75).RESULTS:A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy.CONCLUSIONS:Most clinical trials used the term “efficacy” to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator’s own experiences and knowledge.