ABSTRACT
Pleural pathology is a frequent clinical problem. In some cases, treatment includes draining the cavity which can be carried out by thoracentesis evacuators, but on occasions treatment requires maintaining a drainage permanently inside the pleural cavity Pleural drainage consists in inserting a catheter in the pleural sack to drain the presence of air; liquid or blood which causes a variable degree of lung collapse having a clinical consequence in function of the reserve breathing capacity the patient previously had and the degree of collapse. There are various models of thoracic tubes as well as systems to drain the pleural cavity and their spot for insertion depends on the type of pathology being dealt with for the patient under treatment. Nursing is fundamental in this entire process, including in the preparation of the patient for this treatment, the insertion of the catheter and the adequate maintenance so that this procedure succeeds as well as during the removal of the catheter and the subsequent care required. It is fundamental that the nursing professionals know the materials used as well as their maintenance. A good technique to cure the punt/orifice where a catheter is inserted will prevent numerous complications which could be deadly for the patient. The authors create a procedural protocol for nurses to use when treating patients who have thoracic drains; this protocol deals with changing the catheters as well as the entire process related to how to treat patients with a pleural drain. This protocol should serve as reference material and as a guide to a systematic and homogenous working procedure.
Subject(s)
Pleural Effusion/therapy , Equipment Design , Humans , Suction/instrumentation , Thoracic CavityABSTRACT
The terrorist attack of 11 March tested the response of the Plastic Surgery Department of our center to respond to a mass casualty event. The work performed in the first few hours continued with the same intensity for several days because some patients required more than one intervention and because we were called on by other services to attend patients who could not be evaluated in the Emergency Department. In the present article, we describe the distribution of work and the types of injury produced by terrorist explosions.
Subject(s)
Blast Injuries/surgery , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Hospitals, University/organization & administration , Mass Casualty Incidents/statistics & numerical data , Plastic Surgery Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Surgery, Plastic , Blast Injuries/epidemiology , Explosions , Humans , SpainABSTRACT
El día 11 de marzo, tras producirse el atentado terrorista de Madrid, se puso a prueba la actitud del Servicio de Cirugía Plástica de nuestro centro ante una situación de catástrofe. El trabajo desarrollado en las primeras horas se mantuvo casi con la misma intensidad durante varios días, ya que encontramos pacientes que necesitaron ser intervenidos en más de una ocasión, y porque surgían llamadas e interconsultas de otros servicios para atender a individuos a los que no pudo valorarse en urgencias. En este artículo comentamos la distribución del trabajo y el tipo de lesiones que se derivan de este tipo de atentados (AU)
The terrorist attack of 11 March tested the response of the Plastic Surgery Department of our center to respond to a mass casualty event. The work performed in the first few hours continued with the same intensity for several days because some patients required more than one intervention and because we were called on by other services to attend patients who could not be evaluated in the Emergency Department. In the present article, we describe the distribution of work and the types of injury produced by terrorist explosions (AU)
