Assuntos
COVID-19/microbiologia , Infecções por Enterobacteriaceae/microbiologia , Enterobacteriaceae/metabolismo , beta-Lactamases/metabolismo , Idoso , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Gestão de Antimicrobianos , COVID-19/terapia , Enterobacteriáceas Resistentes a Carbapenêmicos/isolamento & purificação , Cateteres Venosos Centrais , Coinfecção , Enterobacter cloacae/efeitos dos fármacos , Enterobacter cloacae/isolamento & purificação , Enterobacter cloacae/metabolismo , Enterobacteriaceae/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Enterobacteriaceae/terapia , Infecções por Enterobacteriaceae/virologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cidade de Nova Iorque , Respiração ArtificialRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Energy medicine (EM) derives from the theory that a subtle biologic energy can be influenced for therapeutic effect. EM practitioners may be trained within a specific tradition or work solo. Few studies have investigated the feasibility of solo-practitioner EM in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the feasibility of EM as provided by a solo practitioner in inpatient and emergent settings. DESIGN: Feasibility study, including a prospective case series. SETTINGS: Inpatient units and emergency department. OUTCOME MEASURES: To investigate the feasibility of EM, acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality were assessed. Short-term clinical changes were documented by treating physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, employees, and family members were enrolled in the study only if study physicians expected no or slow improvement in specific symptoms. Those with secondary gains or who could not communicate perception of symptom change were excluded. RESULTS: EM was found to have acceptability and demand, and implementation was smooth because study procedures dovetailed with conventional clinical practice. Practicality was acceptable within the study but was low upon further application of EM because of cost of program administration. Twenty-four of 32 patients requested relief from pain. Of 50 reports of pain, 5 (10%) showed no improvement; 4 (8%), slight improvement; 3 (6%), moderate improvement; and 38 (76%), marked improvement. Twenty-one patients had issues other than pain. Of 29 non-pain-related problems, 3 (10%) showed no, 2 (7%) showed slight, 1 (4%) showed moderate, and 23 (79%) showed marked improvement. Changes during EM sessions were usually immediate. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully implemented EM provided by a solo practitioner in inpatient and emergent hospital settings and found that acceptability and demand justified its presence. Most patients experienced marked, immediate improvement of symptoms associated with their chief complaint. Substantial practicality issues must be addressed to implement EM clinically in a hospital, however.
