Tendinitis asociada a levofloxacino / Tendinitis associated with levofloxacin

No disponible

[Do we forget asthma as a chronic illness in our primary care consultations?]. / 'Olvidamos el asma como enfermedad crónica en nuestras consultas de atención primaria?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of the asthmatic population at our centre through the information gathered from clinical records, the morbidity caused by asthma and the health education given. DESIGN: Retrospective, descriptive study. SETTING: Urban primary care team. PARTICIPANTS: Asthma sufferers over 14 registered at the centre (n=284). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Review of the clinical records and analysis of data on diagnosis, follow-up and control of the illness. RESULTS: Prevalence of asthmatics at our centre ran at 1.8%. 73.6% (68.5-78.7) were women, whose average age was 51.25 (21.57). 19% were illiterate. The most common kind of asthma was intermittent (14.1%, 10-18.1). Respiratory infections sparked off acute attacks in 15% (11.3-19.7) of cases. 39.8% (31.4-45.5) (n=113) were diagnosed at the health centre. Spirometry was used as a diagnostic test in 23% (15.2-30.8) (n=26) of these 113 patients. The PC doctor participated in monitoring 81.7% (77.2-86.2) of asthma cases. Spirometry was used in the previous 3 years on 45.4% (39.6-51.2). 95% of spirometry tests were conducted at the hospital. As to health education, there was no record of explanations about the concept of asthma or of breathing techniques in 90.1% (86.1-93.4) and 81% (76.4-85.5) of clinical records, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High percentage of asthmatics monitored by PC doctors. Under-recording in clinical records of asthma-related action taken. Few additional monitoring tests were conducted. There were few data on health education.

[Do our asthma patients still use inhalers incorrectly?]. / Siguen utilizando incorrectamente los inhaladores nuestros pacientes asmáticos?

AIM: To determine how skilled our patients with asthma are in performing different steps in the use of different inhalation devices, and to identify variables that may influence correct inhalation technique (IT). DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional study. SETTING: An urban primary care center. PARTICIPANTS: 141 patients with asthma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance of a practical test to evaluate each step in IT for different devices according to SEPAR-semFYC guidelines. One point was scored for each step that was performed correctly, and the technique was considered correct if the total score was >9. The main outcome variable was the percentage of patients who performed the IT correctly. RESULTS: About three-fourths of the participants (77.3%) were women; mean age was 56.08 +/- 18.99 years. Inhalation technique was incorrect in 53.9% of the patients (51.06% of those who used a pressurized canister inhaler, 59.1% of those who used a PCI+spacer, 38.5% of those who used a Turbuhaler, and 37.5% of those who used an Accuhaler). The highest error rates were seen in exhaling completely before beginning the inhalation (63.78%), holding the breath after inhalation for as long as possible (65.94%), and breathing out slowly after the inhalation (64.86%). Better IT was seen in younger patients with higher levels of education (P=.007). There were no statistically significant differences in the rest of the variables. CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of patients performed inhalations incorrectly. We cannot conclude that any given device is superior. The variables related with correct IT were age and level of education. Greater health education efforts are needed to teach patients how to use inhalation systems correctly.

¿Siguen utilizando incorrectamente los inhaladores nuestros pacientes asmáticos? / Do our asthma patients still use inhalers incorrectly?

Objetivo. Conocer la destreza de nuestros pacientes asmáticos en la realización de las maniobras de los diferentes sistemas de inhalación, así como determinar las posibles variables que puedan influir en la correcta realización de la técnica inhalatoria (TI).Diseño. Estudio descriptivo transversal. Emplazamiento. Centro de atención primaria urbano. Participantes. Un total de 141 asmáticos. Mediciones principales. Realización de un test práctico donde se evaluaba paso a paso la TI para cada uno de los diferentes sistemas de inhalación siguiendo las normativas SEPAR-SemFYC. Por cada maniobra correctamente realizada, se asignaba un punto. La técnica se consideraba correcta si se obtenía una puntuación total > 9. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de pacientes que realizaban bien la TI. Resultados. Un 77,3 por ciento eran mujeres, con una media de edad de 56,08 ñ 18,99 años. La TI fue incorrecta en el 53,9 por ciento de los pacientes (el 51,06 por ciento de los que utilizaban inhalador de cartucho presurizado [ICP], el 59,1 por ciento de los ICP + cámara, el 38,5 por ciento de Turbuhaler y el 37,5 por ciento Accuhaler). Las maniobras con mayor porcentaje de error fueron: espiración previa a la inhalación (63,78 por ciento), mantenimiento de la apnea postinspiración (65,94 por ciento), espiración lenta tras la inhalación (64,86 por ciento).A menor edad y mayor nivel de estudios, se constataba una mejor realización de la TI (p = 0,007). No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el resto de variables. Conclusiones. Se produjo un elevado porcentaje de pacientes con TI incorrecta. No podemos concluir que exista un sistema mejor que otro. Las variables relacionadas con la correcta realización de la TI son la edad y el nivel de estudios. Es necesario intensificar la educación sanitaria sobre el manejo de los diversos sistemas de inhalación (AU)