Quality of hospital emergency department care for patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020: the CALUR-COVID-19 study.

Sònia Jiménez, Òscar Miró, Aitor Alquézar-Arbé, Pascual Piñera, Javier Jacob, Pere Llorens, Eric Jorge García-Lamberechts, Francisco Javier Martín-Sánchez, Juan González Del Castillo, Guillermo Burillo-Putze
{"title":"Quality of hospital emergency department care for patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020: the CALUR-COVID-19 study.","authors":"Sònia Jiménez,&nbsp;Òscar Miró,&nbsp;Aitor Alquézar-Arbé,&nbsp;Pascual Piñera,&nbsp;Javier Jacob,&nbsp;Pere Llorens,&nbsp;Eric Jorge García-Lamberechts,&nbsp;Francisco Javier Martín-Sánchez,&nbsp;Juan González Del Castillo,&nbsp;Guillermo Burillo-Putze","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in 2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level of adherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort was comprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was compared according to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% of patients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs 37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave: monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea (79% vs 53%, P .001). No differences related to age groups were found.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. A learning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected.</p>","PeriodicalId":11644,"journal":{"name":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","volume":" ","pages":"369-376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in 2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence.

Material and methods: We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level of adherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort was comprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was compared according to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups.

Results: Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% of patients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs 37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave: monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea (79% vs 53%, P .001). No differences related to age groups were found.

Conclusion: Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. A learning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected.

2020年第一波COVID-19患者医院急诊科护理质量:CALUR-COVID-19研究
目的:制定医院急诊科治疗新冠肺炎患者的护理质量指标和护理流程标准,确定2020年第一波疫情期间的标准依从性水平,并检测不同依从性水平的相关因素。材料与方法:采用德尔菲法选择护理指标和标准。然后,我们分析了SIESTA队列(由西班牙紧急情况调查小组登记)的依从性水平。该队列由2020年3月和4月在西班牙62家医院接受治疗的COVID-19患者组成。依从性根据与大流行相关的ED病例负荷压力、波浪期间的时间段(早和晚)和年龄组进行比较。结果:确定了14项质量指标。只有不到50%的患者坚持使用三种药物。聚合酶链反应检测SARS-CoV-2感染是最常被忽视的指标,在病例量高的患者中有29%,在其他时间有40% (P .001),在晚期有30%,在早期有37% (P = .04)。对以下指标的依从性较好:监测氧饱和度(100% vs 99%, P = 0.035),羟氯喹治疗患者的心电图监测(87% vs 65%, P = 0.001),腹泻患者避免洛匹那韦/利托那韦治疗(79% vs 53%, P = 0.001)。没有发现与年龄组相关的差异。结论:第一波疫情期间,新冠肺炎患者ED治疗过程中某些质量指标的依从性出现恶化。来自大量病例的压力可能加剧了这种恶化。学习效应导致进步。未发现与患者年龄相关的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信