Situación actual de la atención a las enfermedades emergentes en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarias españoles / Current status of medical care of emerging infectious diseases at hospital emergency services in Spain

Fundamento: Conocer la situación organizativa de los hospitales españoles de cara a facilitar la atención adecuadaen los servicios de urgencias (SUH) de los pacientes queacudan con sospecha de infecciones de origen tropical. Método: Estudio descriptivo transversal mediante cuestionario en formato Google Forms® enviado a los miembros delgrupo de INFURG-SEMES. Se estudiaron variables como eltamaño del hospital a través del número de camas, el númerode urgencias de patología tropical, la existencia de protocolos de medicina tropical, de pruebas diagnósticas urgentes otratamiento antimalárico. Resultados: Se envió el formulario a 75 hospitales, obteniendo respuesta de 42 servicios de urgencias (55%), pertenecientes a 10 comunidades autónomas. Veinticuatro (57,1%)tenían más de 500 camas. Solo cinco hospitales (11,9%) podían diagnosticar malaria y dengue las 24 horas. En 19 hospitales (45,3%) no existía ningún protocolo de enfermedadtropical. En siete hospitales (16,7%) se realizaban diez o másasistencias/día. En los hospitales de mayor tamaño era másfrecuente la existencia de un servicio de enfermedades infecciosas independiente del servicio de Medicina Interna, unaunidad de medicina tropical, un infectólogo de guardia y unmicrobiólogo de guardia. No existen diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los hospitales de mayor y menortamaño en cuanto a la capacidad para realizar diagnósticos otratamiento adecuados durante las 24 horas. Conclusiones: La atención de la patología importada supone un volumen no despreciable de consultas en los SUH,donde en general, se observa una ausencia de protocolosespecíficos, en especial, el protocolo específico de malaria,así como de escasa disponibilidad de prueba diagnósticaurgente de malaria.(AU)

Background: The aim of this study is to determine the current status of Spanish Hospital Emergency Services (HES) indiagnosing and treating the most prevalent tropical diseases (TD) in Spain. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carriedout, using a questionnaire in Google Forms® sent to members of the INFURG-SEMES group. The following variableswere analyzed: the size of the hospital in terms of numberof beds, number of tropical disease emergencies, existenceof tropical medicine protocols, urgent diagnostic tests orantimalarial treatment. Results: The form was sent to 75 hospitals. Responses wereobtained from 42 emergency services (55%) in 10 Autonomous Communities. Twenty-four (57.1%) had >500 beds.Only five hospitals (11.9%) have the facilities to diagnosemalaria and dengue 24 hours a day. There was no tropicaldisease protocol in 19 (45.3%) hospitals. Seven (16.7%)hospitals had ≥ 10 attendances/day. Larger hospitals weremore likely to have an infectious disease unit independentfrom Internal Medicine service, along with a tropical medicine unit, and an on-call infectious disease specialist andmicrobiologist. There are no statistically significant differences between larger and smaller hospitals in terms of theircapacity to carry out appropriate diagnoses or treatmentsin 24 hours. Conclusion: Care and treatment of emerging diseases arenow a sizeable percentage of the consultations at an HES.Such units generally lack specific protocols, particularly formalaria. Urgent diagnostic testing for malaria is also needed.(AU)

[Current status of medical care of emerging infectious diseases at hospital emergency services in Spain].

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the current status of Spanish Hospital Emergency Services (HES) in diagnosing and treating the most prevalent tropical diseases (TD) in Spain. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out, using a questionnaire in Google Forms® sent to members of the INFURG-SEMES group. The following variables were analyzed: the size of the hospital in terms of number of beds, number of tropical disease emergencies, existence of tropical medicine protocols, urgent diagnostic tests or antimalarial treatment. RESULTS: The form was sent to 75 hospitals. Responses were obtained from 42 emergency services (55%) in 10 Autonomous Communities. Twenty-four (57.1%) had >500 beds. Only five hospitals (11.9%) have the facilities to diagnose malaria and dengue 24 hours a day. There was no tropical disease protocol in 19 (45.3%) hospitals. Seven (16.7%) hospitals had =?10 attendances/day. Larger hospitals were more likely to have an infectious disease unit independent from Internal Medicine service, along with a tropical medicine unit, and an on-call infectious disease specialist and microbiologist. There are no statistically significant differences between larger and smaller hospitals in terms of their capacity to carry out appropri-ate diagnoses or treatments in 24 hours. CONCLUSION: Care and treatment of emerging diseases are now a sizeable percentage of the consultations at an HES. Such units generally lack specific protocols, particularly for malaria. Urgent diagnostic testing for malaria is also needed.

Transición asistencial y protocolo de seguimiento en los pacientes diabéticos dados de alta desde Urgencias / Transition care and follow-up for diabetic patients discharged from Emergency Departments

No disponible

Teledermatología diferida: análisis de validez en una serie de 2.000 observaciones / Store-and-Forward Teledermatology: Assessment of Validity in a Series of 2000 Observations

Introducción y objetivos: Objetivo: evaluar la validez de la teledermatología diferida y su aplicación como herramienta de apoyo a Atención Primaria y servicios de Urgencias hospitalarias (consultas presenciales evitadas). Comparar validez y manejo del paciente (presencial vs teledermatología) según el origen del paciente y el grupo diagnóstico. Material y métodos: se compararon los diagnósticos emitidos sobre 100 pacientes por 20 dermatólogos observadores con el emitido en la consulta presencial (patrón oro) y se comparó el manejo entre los grupos de pacientes. Resultados: porcentaje de acuerdo completo (AC): 69,05 (IC 95%: 66,9-71,0). Porcentaje de acuerdo agregado (AG): 87,80 (IC 95%: 86,1-89,0). Pacientes manejados de manera presencial: 60% (58-61). Pacientes manejados por teledermatología: 40% (38-41). Los pacientes provenientes de Atención Primaria y el grupo de patología infecciosa presentó mayor validez diagnóstica (76,1 AC y 91,8 AG; p < 0,001 para Atención Primaria y 73,3 AC y 91,3 AG; p < 0,001 parapatología infecciosa) y fueron manejados vía teledermatológica (42%; p = 0,003 para Atención Primaria y 52%; p < 0,001 para patología infecciosa) en mayor medida que los provenientes de Urgencias (61,8 AC y 83,4 AG; 38% manejo teledermatológico) y aquéllos con patología inflamatoria(70,8 AC y 86,4 AG; 40% manejo teledermatológico) o tumoral (63,0 AC y 87,2 AG; 28%manejo teledermatológico). Conclusiones: la teledermatología diferida presenta una elevada validez diagnóstica, especialmente en casos remitidos de Atención Primaria y para patología infecciosa, y es útil en el manejo y diagnóstico a distancia de pacientes, ya que evitaría el 40% de las consultas presenciales (AU)

Background and objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of store-and forward teledermatology as a tool to support physicians in primary care and hospital emergency services and reduce the requirement for face-to-face appointments. Diagnostic validity and the approach chosen for patient management (face-to-face vs teledermatology) were compared according to patient origin and diagnostic group. Material and methods: Digital images from 100 patients were assessed by 20 different dermatologists and the diagnoses offered were compared with those provided in face-to-face appointments (gold standard). The proposed management of the different groups of patients was also compared. Results: The percentage complete agreement was 69.05% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.9%—71.0%). The aggregate agreement was 87.80% (95% CI, 86.1%—89.0%). When questioned about appropriate management of the patients, observers elected face-to-face consultation in60% of patients (95% CI, 58%—61%) and teledermatology in 40% (95% CI, 38%—41%). Diagnostic validity was higher in patients from primary care (76.1% complete agreement and 91.8% aggregate agreement) than those from hospital emergency services (61.8% complete agreement, 83.4% aggregate agreement) (p < 0.001) and teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients from primary care compared with those from emergency services (42% vs 38%; p = 0.003). In terms of diagnostic group, higher validity was observed for patients with infectious diseases (73.3% complete agreement and 91.3% aggregate agreement) compared to those with inflammatory disease (70.8% complete agreement and 86.4% aggregate agreement) or tumors (63.0% complete agreement and 87.2% aggregate agreement) (p <0.001). Teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients with infectious diseases (52%) than in those with inflammatory disease (40%) or tumors (28%) (p <0.001). Conclusions: Store-and-forward teledermatology has a high level of diagnostic validity, particularly in those cases referred from primary care and in infectious diseases. It can be considered useful for the diagnosis and management of patients at a distance and would reduce the requirement for face-to-face consultation by 40% (AU)

[Store-and-forward teledermatology: assessment of validity in a series of 2000 observations]. / Teledermatología diferida: análisis de validez en una serie de 2.000 observaciones.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of store-and-forward teledermatology as a tool to support physicians in primary care and hospital emergency services and reduce the requirement for face-to-face appointments. Diagnostic validity and the approach chosen for patient management (face-to-face vs teledermatology) were compared according to patient origin and diagnostic group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Digital images from 100 patients were assessed by 20 different dermatologists and the diagnoses offered were compared with those provided in face-to-face appointments (gold standard). The proposed management of the different groups of patients was also compared. RESULTS: The percentage complete agreement was 69.05% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.9%-71.0%). The aggregate agreement was 87.80% (95% CI, 86.1%-89.0%). When questioned about appropriate management of the patients, observers elected face-to-face consultation in 60% of patients (95% CI, 58%-61%) and teledermatology in 40% (95% CI, 38%-41%). Diagnostic validity was higher in patients from primary care (76.1% complete agreement and 91.8% aggregate agreement) than those from hospital emergency services (61.8% complete agreement, 83.4% aggregate agreement) (p < 0.001) and teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients from primary care compared with those from emergency services (42% vs 38%; p=0.003). In terms of diagnostic group, higher validity was observed for patients with infectious diseases (73.3% complete agreement and 91.3% aggregate agreement) compared to those with inflammatory disease (70.8% complete agreement and 86.4% aggregate agreement) or tumors (63.0% complete agreement and 87.2% aggregate agreement) (p <0.001). Teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients with infectious diseases (52%) than in those with inflammatory disease (40%) or tumors (28%) (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Store-and-forward teledermatology has a high level of diagnostic validity, particularly in those cases referred from primary care and in infectious diseases. It can be considered useful for the diagnosis and management of patients at a distance and would reduce the requirement for face-to-face consultation by 40%.