ABSTRACT
Introducción: La asistencia sanitaria no está exenta de prácticas diagnósticas y terapéuticas poco efectivas, inseguras o ineficientes. Como reacción han sido propuestas recomendaciones de «no hacer» por diferentes sociedades científicas y autoridades sanitarias. Nuestro objetivo fue seleccionar y consensuar un grupo de recomendaciones de «no hacer» (RNH) en cuidados intensivos pediátricos en España. Material y método: Esta investigación se desarrolló en dos fases: primera, recopilación de posibles RNH; segunda, selección por método Delphi de las más importantes según prevalencia de la práctica a modificar, gravedad de sus potenciales riesgos, y facilidad con la que podría ser modificada. Tanto las propuestas como las evaluaciones fueron realizadas por miembros de grupos de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP) coordinados por correo electrónico. El listado inicial de RNH fue reduciéndose en base al coeficiente de variación (<80%) de sus evaluaciones. Resultados: Fueron propuestas 182 RNH por 30 intensivistas. Los 14 evaluadores del Delphi lograron reducir el set inicial a 85 RNH y tras una segunda ronda se llegó a la selección final de 26 RNH. Las dimensiones de calidad más representadas en nuestro set final son la efectividad clínica y la seguridad de pacientes. Conclusiones: Nuestro trabajo ha permitido seleccionar y consensuar una serie de recomendaciones para evitar prácticas inseguras, ineficientes o inefectivas en intensivos pediátricos en España, lo que podría ser útil para mejorar la calidad de nuestra actividad clínica. (AU)
Introduction: Health care is not free of ineffective, unsafe or inefficient diagnostic and therapeutic practices. To address this, different scientific societies and health authorities have proposed do not do recommendations (DNDRs). Our goal was the selection by consensus of a set of DNDRs for paediatric intensive care in Spain. Material and method: The research was carried out in two phases: first, gathering potential DNDRs; second, selecting the most important ones, using the Delphi method, based on the prevalence of the practice to be modified, the severity of its potential risks and the ease with which it could be modified. Proposals and evaluations were both made by members of working groups of the Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP, Spanish Society of Paediatric Intensive Care), coordinated by email. The initial set of DNDRs was reduced based on the coefficient of variation (<80%) of the corresponding evaluations. Results: A total of 182 DNDRs were proposed by 30 intensivists. The 14 Delphi evaluators managed to pare down the initial set to 85 DNDRs and, after a second round, to the final set of 26 DNDRs. The care quality dimensions most represented in the final set are clinical effectiveness and patient safety. Conclusions: This study allowed the selection by consensus of a series of recommendations to avoid unsafe, inefficient or ineffective practices in paediatric intensive care in Spain, which could be useful for improving the quality of clinical care in our field. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Critical Care , Intensive Care Units , Pediatrics , SpainABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Health care is not free of ineffective, unsafe or inefficient diagnostic and therapeutic practices. To address this, different scientific societies and health authorities have proposed 'do not do' recommendations (DNDRs). Our goal was the selection by consensus of a set of DNDRs for paediatric intensive care in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The research was carried out in 2 phases: first, gathering potential DNDRs; second, selecting the most important ones, using the Delphi method, based on the prevalence of the practice to be modified, the severity of its potential risks and the ease with which it could be modified. Proposals and evaluations were both made by members of working groups of the Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP, Spanish Society of Paediatric Intensive Care), coordinated by email. The initial set of DNDRs was reduced based on the coefficient of variation (<80%) of the corresponding evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 182 DNDRs were proposed by 30 intensivists. The 14 Delphi evaluators managed to pare down the initial set to 85 DNDRs and, after a second round, to the final set of 26 DNDRs. The care quality dimensions most represented in the final set are clinical effectiveness and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study allowed the selection by consensus of a series of recommendations to avoid unsafe, inefficient or ineffective practices in paediatric intensive care in Spain, which could be useful for improving the quality of clinical care in our field.
Subject(s)
Critical Care , Quality of Health Care , Child , Humans , Spain , Delphi Technique , Consensus , Critical Care/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate-severe systolic dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft have a higher incidence of postoperative low cardiac output. Preconditioning with levosimendan may be a useful strategy to prevent this complication. In this context, design cost-effective strategies like preconditioning with levosimendan may become necessary. METHODS: In a sequential assignment of patients with Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction less than 40%, two strategies were compared in terms of cost-effectiveness: standard care (n = 41) versus preconditioning with Levosimendan (n = 13). The adverse effects studied included: postoperative new-onset atrial fibrillation, low cardiac output, renal failure and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The costs were evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. RESULTS: Preconditioning with levosimendan in moderate to severe systolic dysfunction (Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction < 40%), was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative low cardiac output in elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery 2(15.4%) vs 25(61%) (P < 0.01) and lesser intensive care unit length of stay 2(1-4) vs 4(3-6) days (P = 0.03). Average cost on levosimendan group was 14,792 while the average cost per patient without levosimendan was 17,007. Patients with no complications represented 53.8% of the total in the levosimendan arm, as compared to 31.7% in the non-levosimendan arm. In all Montecarlo simulations for sensitivity analysis, use of levosimendan was less expensive and more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Preconditioning with levosimendan, is a cost-effective strategy preventing postoperative low cardiac output in patients with moderate-severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
