Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Microorganisms ; 11(2)2023 Feb 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2229951

ABSTRACT

Background: Inappropriate use of the emergency department (IEDU)-consisting of the unnecessary use of the resource by patients with no clinical need-is one of the leading causes of the loss of efficiency of the health system. Specific contexts modify routine clinical practice and usage patterns. This study aims to analyse the influence of COVID-19 on the IEDU and its causes. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study conducted in the emergency department of a high-complexity hospital. The Hospital Emergency Suitability Protocol (HESP) was used to measure the prevalence of IEDU and its causes, comparing three pairs of periods: (1) March 2019 and 2020; (2) June 2019 and 2020; and (3) September 2019 and 2020. A bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models, adjusted for confounding variables, were utilized. Results: In total, 822 emergency visits were included (137 per period). A total prevalence of IEDU of 14.1% was found. There was a significant decrease in IEDU in March 2020 (OR: 0.03), with a prevalence of 0.8%. No differences were found in the other periods. A mistrust in primary care was the leading cause of IEDU (65.1%). Conclusions: The impact of COVID-19 reduced the frequency of IEDU during the period of more significant population restrictions, with IEDU returning to previous levels in subsequent months. Targeted actions in the field of population education and an improvement in primary care are positioned as strategies that could mitigate its impact.

2.
J Clin Med ; 11(13)2022 Jul 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1917561

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: The development of effective COVID-19 vaccines has reduced the impact of COVID-19 on the general population. Our study aims to analyze how vaccination modifies the likelihood of death and length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1927 hospitalized patients infected with COVID-19 was conducted. Information was gathered on vaccination status, hospitalization episode, and clinical profile of the patients. The effect of vaccination on mortality was analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model, and length of stay was analyzed using linear regression. The performance and fit of the models were evaluated; (3) Results: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the risk of dying during admission in vaccinated patients was half that of non-vaccinated (OR: 0.45; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.84). In patients who were discharged due to improvement, the reduction in hospital stay in vaccinated patients was 3.17 days (CI 95%: 5.88 to 0.47); (4) Conclusions: Patients who, despite having been vaccinated, acquire the infection by SARS-CoV-2, have a significant reduction of the risk of death during admission and a reduction of hospital stay compared with unvaccinated patients.

3.
J Healthc Qual Res ; 37(3): 162-168, 2022.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545175

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has caused an exceptional situation in our country's healthcare system. Healthcare workers could become the second victims as consequence of this pandemic circumstances, such as: the huge work overload that healthcare workers have been exposed to, the excessive emotional overload, the stressful situations and the fear of being infected themselves and to infect their families. The aim of this study is to know the emotional overload of workers in intensive care units during SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in a tertiary hospital in the Community of Madrid. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study, carried out through the voluntary completion by workers in intensive care units of a questionnaire adapted from the Acute Stress Scale «EASE COVID-19¼, with 10 closed-ended Likert scale questions, adding four questions: sex, professional category, if they usually work in intensive care units and the sacrifice in their routines. Data were collected in July 2020, to assess the impact of the first wave. A descriptive analysis was carried out as well as an analysis of the possible links between the collected variables and the emotional response. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of surveyed respondents showed good emotional adjustment. The major concern of the participants was the possibility of infecting their families. The highest scores by categories were observed in nurses, assistant nursing care technicians and orderlies, while 100% of doctors showed good emotional adjustment, with no differences between genders. Sixty percent of participants modified their family routine, being medical residents who got the highest percentage. CONCLUSIONS: Sanitary crisis has turned healthcare workers into second victims of SARS-CoV-2. Their detection is essential to offer them help and resources to ensure their emotional well-being, removing barriers and helping them to be strengthened.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 41(2): 305-312, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1520373

ABSTRACT

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) continues to be the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of COVID-19 cases; however, rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) have recently been developed. The purpose of the study is to assess the performance of rapid antigen-based COVID-19 testing in the context of hospital outbreaks. This was an observational, cross-sectional study. The study period was from October 2020 to January 2021. The "Panbio COVID-19 AG" RADT (Abbott) was performed and TaqPath COVID-19 test RT-PCR. The samples were obtained from hospitalised patients in suspected outbreak situations at the Ramón y Cajal Hospital. A hospital outbreak was defined as the presence of 3 or more epidemiologically linked cases. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the RADT were calculated using RT-PCR as a reference. A total of 17 hospital outbreaks were detected in 11 hospital units during the study period, in which 34 RT-PCR and RADT screenings were performed. We obtained 541 samples, which were analysed with RT-PCR and a further 541 analysed with RADT. Six RADT tests gave conflicting results with the RT-PCR, 5 of them with a negative RADT and positive RT-PCR and one with positive RADT and a negative RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the RADT was 83.3% (65.3-94.4%) and the specificity was 99.8% (98.9-100%). The PPV was 96.2% (80.4-99.9%) and the NPV was 99% (97.7-99.7%). The RADT shows good diagnostic performance in patients on non-COVID-19 hospital wards, in the context of an outbreak.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spain/epidemiology
5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(6)2021 03 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389361

ABSTRACT

This study aims to identify factors related with SARS-CoV-2 infection in physicians and internal residents during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic at a tertiary hospital in Spain, through a cross- sectional descriptive perception study with analytical components through two questionnaires directed at professionals working at the Ramon y Cajal University Hospital between February and April 2020. In total, 167 professionals formed the study group, and 156 professionals comprised the comparison group. Seventy percent of the professionals perceived a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), while 40% perceived a shortage of hand sanitiser, although more than 70% said they used it properly. Soap was more available and had a higher percentage of correct use (73.6-79.5%) (p > 0.05). Hand hygiene was optimal in >70% of professionals according to all five WHO measurements. In the adjusted model (OR; CI95%), belonging to a high-risk specialty (4.45; 1.66-11.91) and the use of public transportation (3.27; 1.87-5.73) remained risk factors. Protective factors were changes of uniform (0.53; 0.32-0.90), sanitation of personal objects before the workday (0.55; 0.31-0.97), and the disinfection of shared material (0.34; 0.19-0.58). We cannot confirm that a shortage or misuse of PPE is a factor in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Fears and assessments are similar in both groups, but we cannot causally relate them to the spread of infection. The perception of the area of risk is different in both groups, suggesting that more information and education for healthcare workers is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel , Humans , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Spain/epidemiology , Specialization
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL