Los ingresos ectópicos y su relación con la aparición de complicaciones y estancias prolongadas / Outlier patient admissions and their relationship with the emergence of clinical complications and prolonged hospital stays

Objetivo: Analizar la relación entre el tipo de ingreso (ectópico y no ectópico) y la aparición de complicaciones clínicas y la estancia media. Métodos: Mediante un estudio epidemiológico retrospectivo de cohorte de pacientes ingresados durante un periodo de 6 meses en el Hospital Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca se identificaron los pacientes ectópicos y no ectópicos. Se utilizaron las bases de datos del servicio de admisión, el conjunto mínimo básico de datos de hospitalización, el agrupador de pacientes por grupos relacionados por el diagnóstico (GRD) y el analizador estadístico clínico-asistencial ALCOR. El análisis se amplió detallando los resultados para los cinco GRD más frecuentes en el periodo. Resultados: De un total de 11.842 ingresos, el 8,4% fueron ingresos ectópicos. En el estudio global, la estancia media fue mayor en los ectópicos (8,11 días) que en los no ectópicos (7,15 días). La mortalidad también fue superior en los ectópicos, pero aparecieron menos complicaciones (7,6% en ectópicos frente a 8,4% en no ectópicos). El análisis por GRD mantuvo estos resultados en tres de los cinco grupos analizados, con mayor estancia media, pero menos complicaciones, en los casos ectópicos. Conclusiones: Un determinado porcentaje de pacientes ingresaron ectópicos. Fueron más frecuentes los pacientes de especialidades médicas ubicados en plantas quirúrgicas. Estos pacientes ectópicos presentaron una estancia media mayor respecto a los no ectópicos. No hubo diferencias significativas en la aparición de complicaciones

Objective: To analyze the relationship between the type of hospital admission (outlier and non-outlier admissions) and the appearance of clinical complications and the average stay. Methods: From a retrospective epidemiological study of a cohort of patients admitted to the Hospital Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca (Salamanca, Spain) over a six-month period, outlier and non-outlier patients were identified. This project had access to the admissions department database, the hospital's CMBD (in Spanish, Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos) for hospitalisation, the AP-DRG (All Patient-Diagnosis Related Groups) and ALCOR (a clinical-statistics analytics tool). It then proceeded to break down the results by DRG, looking at the five most common DRGs in that period. Results: 8.4% of the total 11,842 admissions were medical outliers. In the overall study, the average stay was longer for outlier patients (8. 11 days) than for other patients (7.15 days). The mortality rate was, likewise, higher for outlier patients, although there was a reduced incidence of complications (7.6% for outlier patients as opposed to 8.4% for others). The analysis by DRG corroborated these results in three of the five cases investigated, showing longer average stays but fewer clinical complications in the case of outlier patients. Conclusions: On admission to hospital, a significant proportion of patients were allocated beds on inappropriate wards (outlier patients). It was more common to find medical patients placed on surgical wards than vice versa. The average stay of outlier patients was longer than that of patients admitted to the correct ward. The study found no significant difference between the two groupś in terms of clinical complication rates

[Outlier patient admissions and their relationship with the emergence of clinical complications and prolonged hospital stays]. / Los ingresos ectópicos y su relación con la aparición de complicaciones y estancias prolongadas.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the type of hospital admission (outlier and non-outlier admissions) and the appearance of clinical complications and the average stay. METHODS: From a retrospective epidemiological study of a cohort of patients admitted to the Hospital Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca (Salamanca, Spain) over a six-month period, outlier and non-outlier patients were identified. This project had access to the admissions department database, the hospital's CMBD (in Spanish, Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos) for hospitalisation, the AP-DRG (All Patient-Diagnosis Related Groups) and ALCOR (a clinical-statistics analytics tool). It then proceeded to break down the results by DRG, looking at the five most common DRGs in that period. RESULTS: 8.4% of the total 11,842 admissions were medical outliers. In the overall study, the average stay was longer for outlier patients (8. 11 days) than for other patients (7.15 days). The mortality rate was, likewise, higher for outlier patients, although there was a reduced incidence of complications (7.6% for outlier patients as opposed to 8.4% for others). The analysis by DRG corroborated these results in three of the five cases investigated, showing longer average stays but fewer clinical complications in the case of outlier patients. CONCLUSIONS: On admission to hospital, a significant proportion of patients were allocated beds on inappropriate wards (outlier patients). It was more common to find medical patients placed on surgical wards than vice versa. The average stay of outlier patients was longer than that of patients admitted to the correct ward. The study found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical complication rates.

Necesidades de información de los usuarios de Atención Primaria desde la perspectiva de los profesionales sanitarios. Un estudio Delphi / Information needs of patients in primary care from the perspective of health professionals. A Delphi study

Objetivos Conocer las necesidades de información de los usuarios en relación a la oferta de servicios de Atención Primaria desde la perspectiva de los profesionales sanitarios.MétodosSe ha utilizado la técnica Delphi como método de consenso. Se solicitó la participación de 70 expertos: 35 médicos de familia, 32 enfermeras y tres pediatras de centros de salud urbanos y rurales del Área de Salud de Salamanca, entre mayo y diciembre de 2006. Los cuestionarios estaban estructurados en seis apartados: conocimientos sobre su salud, oferta de su centro de salud, aspectos administrativos, medios de difusión, expectativas sobre información y barreras en la comunicación. Las respuestas priorizadas en el tercer cuestionario se puntuaron según una escala que otorga cinco puntos a la sentencia más importante y un punto a la seleccionada en quinto lugar.ResultadosContestaron los tres cuestionarios 44 (62,8%) expertos. Las necesidades de información más puntuadas fueron la información sobre su enfermedad (4,0 puntos), los aspectos relacionados con la responsabilidad sobre su salud (3,8) y los consejos preventivos (3,6), seguidos de aspectos relativos a la accesibilidad (4,2), urgencias (3,4), oferta de servicios de médico/a y enfermera/o (3,6) y sitios donde dirigirse para obtener información (4,0). La falta de coordinación entre niveles (4,1) y la burocratización (3,5) se consideraron barreras en la comunicación y la información.ConclusionesLos factores identificados se centran en contenidos que permitan a los pacientes implicarse en su propio proceso y participar en la toma de decisiones que les incumben. También destacaron la información sobre los servicios y el acceso a éstos(AU)

Objective To determine the information needed by patients in relation to the supply of primary care services from the perspective of health professionals.MethodsThe Delphi technique was used as a consensus method. Seventy experts were asked to participate: 35 primary care physicians, 32 nurse practitioners, and three pediatricians in rural and non-rural health centers in the Health Area of Salamanca between May and December 2006. The questionnaires used were structured into six sections: patientsŒ knowledge of their health, services in their health centers, administrative topics, the media, information expectations, and communication barriers. In the third questionnaire, prioritized answers were scored between 5 points and 1 point according to their importance.ResultsAll three questionnaires were completed by 44 experts (62.8%). The information needs with the highest scores were information on patientsŒ diseases (4.0 points), subjects related to patientsŒ responsibility for their health (3.8) and preventive advice (3.6), followed by subjects relating to access (4.2), emergencies (3.4), physiciansf and nurse practitionersf services (3.6), and places to go to get information (4.0). The lack of coordination between primary and hospital care (4.1) and excessive bureaucracy (3.5) were considered to limit communication and information.ConclusionsThe factors identified focus on contents that allow patients to get involved in their own process and to take active part in the decision-making that concerns them. Other important factors were information about services and the access to them(AU)

[Information needs of patients in primary care from the perspective of health professionals. A Delphi study]. / Necesidades de información de los usuarios de Atención Primaria desde la perspectiva de los profesionales sanitarios. Un estudio Delphi.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the information needed by patients in relation to the supply of primary care services from the perspective of health professionals. METHODS: The Delphi technique was used as a consensus method. Seventy experts were asked to participate: 35 primary care physicians, 32 nurse practitioners, and three pediatricians in rural and non-rural health centers in the Health Area of Salamanca between May and December 2006. The questionnaires used were structured into six sections: patients' knowledge of their health, services in their health centers, administrative topics, the media, information expectations, and communication barriers. In the third questionnaire, prioritized answers were scored between 5 points and 1 point according to their importance. RESULTS: All three questionnaires were completed by 44 experts (62.8%). The information needs with the highest scores were information on patients' diseases (4.0 points), subjects related to patients' responsibility for their health (3.8) and preventive advice (3.6), followed by subjects relating to access (4.2), emergencies (3.4), physicians' and nurse practitioners' services (3.6), and places to go to get information (4.0). The lack of coordination between primary and hospital care (4.1) and excessive bureaucracy (3.5) were considered to limit communication and information. CONCLUSIONS: The factors identified focus on contents that allow patients to get involved in their own process and to take active part in the decision-making that concerns them. Other important factors were information about services and the access to them.