Identificar el pie de riesgo en pacientes con diabetes. Un espacio de mejora en atención primaria / Identify the risk foot in patients with diabetes. A space for improvement in primary care

Objetivos: Identificar los factores condicionantes del pie de riesgo (PR) comparando 2 métodos de evaluación (cualitativo y cuantitativo) para neuropatía, arteriopatía y deformidades del pie. Concordancia entre alteraciones detectadas y registradas en el historial clínico (HC). Material y métodos: Estudio observacional. Ámbito: 2 centros de atención primaria del Instituto Catalán Salud. Población: Quinientos treinta y dos pacientes con diabetes, ambos sexos >18 años con registros del PR y consentimiento informado. Mediciones: Neuropatía: valoración síntomas (NSS) y signos discapacidad (NDS). Arteriopatía: índice tobillo brazo (ITB), cuestionario Edimburgo, pulsos pedios. Deformidades pie: pedigrafía. Valores de referencia cuantitativos: Neuropatía definida: NDS>6 puntos o 3-5 y NSS>5 puntos. ITB: valor normalidad (0,90-1,30). Resultados: Mujeres: 46,42%; edad media: 67,29 años (DE: 7,69). Ciento cincuenta y tres pacientes sin complicaciones neurovasculares. Cualitativo: Sin diferenciar manifestaciones clínicas: 252 pacientes presentaron neuropatía; 99 pacientes presentaron ITB alterado; 28 pacientes presentaron complicaciones y 101 pacientes cuestionario Edimburgo alterado. Cuantitativo: Diferenciando manifestaciones clínicas: del grupo neuropatía, 110 pacientes solo presentaron síntomas; 46 pacientes presentaron neuropatía definida y 96 pacientes puntuación NDS y NSS, sin criterios neuropatía definida. ITB alterado: 52, solo ITB>1,30; 47, solo ITB<0,90; 12, asociaron neuropatía e ITB>1,30 y 16 con ITB<0,90. Cuestionario Edimburgo: 47 pacientes presentaron clínica atípica y 54, típica. Concordancia entre alteraciones neurovasculares cuantitativas y registradas r=0,32 para neuropatía y r=0,21 en arteriopatía. El punto de presión sobre el 5.° metatarso se asoció a neuropatía cuantitativa: OR: 2,32 (1,188-4,546); p=0,01.Conclusión: La evaluación, identificando manifestaciones clínicas, mejora la identificación del PR aunque necesitamos más investigación (AU)

Goals: Identify conditioning factors of the foot risk (FR) by comparing two evaluation methods (qualitative and quantitative) for neuropathy, arteriopathy, foot deformities. Concordance between detected the alterations and registered in clinical history (CH). Material and methods: It is an observational study. Ambit: in two primary care centers of the Catalan Health Institute. Population: Five hundred thirty-two patients with diabetes, both >18 years with FR records and informed consent. Measurements: Neuropathy: symptom assessment (NSS) and signs of disability (NDS). Arteriopathy: Index ABI. Edinburgh Questionnaire, fart pulses. Foot deformities: Pedigraphy. Quantitative reference: Values Defined neuropathy: NDS>6 points or 3-5 and NSS>5 points. ITB: Normal value (.90-1.30). Results: Women, 46.42%. Middle ages, 67.29 years (SD 7.69). One hundred fifty-three patients did not present neurovascular alterations. Qualitative: Without differentiating clinical manifestations: 252, patients presented neuropathy; 99, altered ITB; 28, two complications and 101, Edinburgh Quiz: altered. Quantitative: Differentiating clinical manifestations: among the neuropathy group; 110, patients only presented symptoms; 46, definite neuropathy. In 96, NDS and NSS scores without defined neuropathy criteria. Altered ABI: 52, only ABI>1.30; 47, ABI<.90; 12, associated neuropathy and ABI>1.30 and 16, with ABI<.90. Edinburgh questionnaire: 47, presented atypical symptoms and 26, typical. Agreement, between quantitative and recorded neurovascular alterations r=.32 for neuropathy and r=.21 in arteriopathy. The pressure point on the 5th metatarsal, was associated with quantitative neuropathy: OR: 2.32 (1.188–4.546), P=.01. Conclusion: The evaluation, identifying clinical manifestations, improves the identification of FR, although we need more research (AU)

[Identify the risk foot in patients with diabetes. A space for improvement in primary care]. / Identificar el pie de riesgo en pacientes con diabetes. Un espacio de mejora en atención primaria.

GOALS: Identify conditioning factors of the foot risk (FR) by comparing two evaluation methods (qualitative and quantitative) for neuropathy, arteriopathy, foot deformities. Concordance between detected the alterations and registered in clinical history (CH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: It is an observational study. Ambit: in two primary care centers of the Catalan Health Institute. POPULATION: Five hundred thirty-two patients with diabetes, both >18 years with FR records and informed consent. MEASUREMENTS: Neuropathy: symptom assessment (NSS) and signs of disability (NDS). Arteriopathy: Index ABI. Edinburgh Questionnaire, fart pulses. Foot deformities: Pedigraphy. Quantitative reference: Values Defined neuropathy: NDS>6 points or 3-5 and NSS>5 points. ITB: Normal value (.90-1.30). RESULTS: Women, 46.42%. Middle ages, 67.29 years (SD 7.69). One hundred fifty-three patients did not present neurovascular alterations. QUALITATIVE: Without differentiating clinical manifestations: 252, patients presented neuropathy; 99, altered ITB; 28, two complications and 101, Edinburgh Quiz: altered. QUANTITATIVE: Differentiating clinical manifestations: among the neuropathy group; 110, patients only presented symptoms; 46, definite neuropathy. In 96, NDS and NSS scores without defined neuropathy criteria. ALTERED ABI: 52, only ABI>1.30; 47, ABI<.90; 12, associated neuropathy and ABI>1.30 and 16, with ABI<.90. Edinburgh questionnaire: 47, presented atypical symptoms and 26, typical. Agreement, between quantitative and recorded neurovascular alterations r=.32 for neuropathy and r=.21 in arteriopathy. The pressure point on the 5th metatarsal, was associated with quantitative neuropathy: OR: 2.32 (1.188-4.546), P=.01. CONCLUSION: The evaluation, identifying clinical manifestations, improves the identification of FR, although we need more research.

[Perception of the professional nursing environment in Primary Care in the Valencian Community, in departments with public and private management]. / Percepción del entorno de práctica enfermera de Atención Primaria de la Comunidad Valenciana, en departamentos con gestión pública y privada.

BACKGROUND: Nursing practice environments (NPE) improve the quality of care, satisfaction and heath results; there are no studies that compare the Primary Health Care (PHC) environments according to their management model. Our aim is to estimate and compare the perception of the quality of the NPE in the PHC in Health Departments (HD) of the Valencian Community (Spain) with management model public or indirect-private (Administrative concession). METHOD: Transversal study on PHC nurses from three HD, one with direct public management and two with indirect-private management. The Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index questionnaire, validated in Spain, was administered. Sociodemographic and professional variables were recorded. Variables related to test score were analyzed by multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-nine answers (80.3%). All HD perceived NPE quality in a positive way, both globally and for the different dimensions (except D4). Indirect private management model HD obtained higher global scores, the same tendency was observed for D1 and D2, and the opposite for D4. Global score was related to age, professional experience, being a coordinator and management model; only the age of the nurses and being a coordinator showed a significant relationship with the score in the multivariate regression model. CONCLUSIONS: The NPE of the PHC of the Valencian Community are of good quality, without significant differences according to different management models of the HD. Being a coordinator and, particularly, the age of the nurses are variables that are independently related to the global score obtained.

Outcome of drug-induced sleep endoscopy-directed surgery for persistent obstructive sleep apnea after adenotonsillar surgery.

PURPOSE: Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is suitable for evaluating persistent obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) after adenotonsillar surgery as a means to guide surgical intervention, yet few studies demonstrate its usefulness in resolving the syndrome. We describe our experience of DISE-directed surgery in children with persistent OSAS by analysing objective and subjective outcomes of this treatment. METHODS: Prospective study of 20 otherwise healthy 2-12 year-old children with OSAS persisting after adenotonsillar surgery. All patients underwent DISE-directed surgery and were followed up clinically and with a polysomnogram at 12 ±â€¯3 months. RESULTS: All 20 children had an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) score ≥1 (mean: 6.1 ±â€¯4.9) and 75% had AHI>3 before surgery. We performed a total of 14 total tonsillectomies (70%), 7 with associated pharyngoplasties; 5 radiofrequency turbinate reductions (25%); 7 radiofrequency lingual tonsil reductions (35%); and 10 revision adenoidectomies (50%). No surgery-related complications were observed. AHI scores at follow-up were significantly lower than AHI scores before surgery (1.895 ±â€¯1.11 vs 6.143 ±â€¯4.88; p < 0.05) and, in 85% (n = 17) of patients, AHI was below 3. There was a significant reduction in the number of children with AHI>3 in follow-up at 12 ±â€¯3 months (15%; n = 3) compared to before surgery (75%; n = 15) (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: DISE-directed surgery for otherwise healthy children with persistent OSAS is a useful and safe technique to decide a therapeutic strategy and to obtain good objective and subjective results regarding resolution of the syndrome.

Fracture experience among participants from the FROCAT study: what thresholding is appropriate using the FRAX tool?

OBJECTIVE: To perform an external validation of FRAX algorithm thresholds for reporting level of risk of fracture in Spanish women (low < 5%; intermediate ≥ 5% and < 7.5%; high ≥ 7.5%) taken from a prospective cohort "FRIDEX". METHODS: A retrospective study of 1090 women aged ≥ 40 and ≤ 90 years old obtained from the general population (FROCAT cohort). FRAX was calculated with data registered in 2002. All fractures were validated in 2012. Sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: When analyzing the cohort (884) excluding current or past anti osteoporotic medication (AOM), using our nominated thresholds, among the 621 (70.2%) women at low risk of fracture, 5.2% [CI95%: 3.4-7.6] sustained a fragility fracture; among the 99 at intermediate risk, 12.1% [6.4-20.2]; and among the 164 defined as high risk, 15.9% [10.6-24.2]. Sensitivity analysis against model risk stratification FRIDEX of FRAX Spain shows no significant difference. By including 206 women with AOM, the sensitivity analysis shows no difference in the group of intermediate and high risk and minimal differences in the low risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support and validate the use of FRIDEX thresholds of FRAX when discussing the risk of fracture and the initiation of therapy with patients.