¿Son las unidades de corta estancia un recurso adecuado para la hospitalización de los pacientes ancianos con infección?

Ferran Llopis , Carles Ferré , Eric Jorge García-Lamberechts , Mikel Martínez-Ortiz-de-Zárate , Javier Jacob , Juan González-del-Castillo , en representación del grupo de trabajo INFURG-SEMES y URG UCE SEMES
{"title":"¿Son las unidades de corta estancia un recurso adecuado para la hospitalización de los pacientes ancianos con infección?","authors":"Ferran Llopis ,&nbsp;Carles Ferré ,&nbsp;Eric Jorge García-Lamberechts ,&nbsp;Mikel Martínez-Ortiz-de-Zárate ,&nbsp;Javier Jacob ,&nbsp;Juan González-del-Castillo ,&nbsp;en representación del grupo de trabajo INFURG-SEMES y URG UCE SEMES","doi":"10.1016/j.cali.2016.02.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with suspected infection attending the emergency department (ED) and to compare patients admitted to a short-stay unit (SSU) with those admitted to a conventional hospital unit (CHU).</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>Prospective cohort study including, using opportunity sampling, patients ≥<!--> <!-->75 years treated for infection in the ED of 3 Spanish university hospitals (2013). Demographic variables, comorbidity, baseline performance status, presence of sepsis, infection type, destination on discharge, and mortality at 30 days were collected.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During the study period, 330 patients ≥<!--> <!-->75 years (mean age 83.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->7.3) were evaluated for a suspected infection in the ED, and 306 (93%) were admitted to the hospital, 175 (53%) to the CHU and 87 (26%) to the SSU. Medical history included hypertension (74.5%), arrhythmia (30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (28%), and diabetes mellitus (26%), and risk factors for multidrug resistance, such as antibiotic treatment in 3 months prior to admission (48%), and institutionalisation (26%). A classic sepsis syndrome was found to be the source of infection in 53%, and was respiratory in half of patients. When comparing patients admitted to SSU and CHU, statistically significant differences (<em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.05) were found in the Charlson index (1.95 vs. 2.51), Glasgow coma scale (14.6 vs. 14.3), classic sepsis syndrome (67% vs. 53%), severe sepsis (2.3% vs. 18%), length of stay (4.2 vs. 10.4 days), and mortality within 30 days (3.4% vs. 18%), respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>SSU may be an adequate alternative to CHU for elderly patients requiring admission with suspected infection.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101101,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","volume":"31 6","pages":"Pages 322-328"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cali.2016.02.007","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1134282X16300392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective

To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with suspected infection attending the emergency department (ED) and to compare patients admitted to a short-stay unit (SSU) with those admitted to a conventional hospital unit (CHU).

Material and methods

Prospective cohort study including, using opportunity sampling, patients ≥ 75 years treated for infection in the ED of 3 Spanish university hospitals (2013). Demographic variables, comorbidity, baseline performance status, presence of sepsis, infection type, destination on discharge, and mortality at 30 days were collected.

Results

During the study period, 330 patients ≥ 75 years (mean age 83.8 ± 7.3) were evaluated for a suspected infection in the ED, and 306 (93%) were admitted to the hospital, 175 (53%) to the CHU and 87 (26%) to the SSU. Medical history included hypertension (74.5%), arrhythmia (30%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (28%), and diabetes mellitus (26%), and risk factors for multidrug resistance, such as antibiotic treatment in 3 months prior to admission (48%), and institutionalisation (26%). A classic sepsis syndrome was found to be the source of infection in 53%, and was respiratory in half of patients. When comparing patients admitted to SSU and CHU, statistically significant differences (p < .05) were found in the Charlson index (1.95 vs. 2.51), Glasgow coma scale (14.6 vs. 14.3), classic sepsis syndrome (67% vs. 53%), severe sepsis (2.3% vs. 18%), length of stay (4.2 vs. 10.4 days), and mortality within 30 days (3.4% vs. 18%), respectively.

Conclusions

SSU may be an adequate alternative to CHU for elderly patients requiring admission with suspected infection.

短期住院病房是否适合老年感染患者住院治疗?
目的描述急诊(ED)疑似感染老年患者(≥75岁)的临床特征和预后,并比较短期住院(SSU)和常规医院(CHU)住院的患者。材料和方法前瞻性队列研究,采用机会抽样,纳入西班牙3所大学医院急诊科收治的≥75岁感染患者(2013年)。收集人口统计学变量、合并症、基线表现状态、败血症的存在、感染类型、出院目的地和30天死亡率。结果在研究期间,有330例≥75岁(平均年龄83.8±7.3岁)的患者在急诊科被评估为疑似感染,其中306例(93%)住院,175例(53%)进入急诊科,87例(26%)进入急诊科。病史包括高血压(74.5%)、心律失常(30%)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(28%)和糖尿病(26%),以及多药耐药的危险因素,如入院前3个月的抗生素治疗(48%)和住院治疗(26%)。53%的患者感染源为典型败血症综合征,半数患者感染源为呼吸道感染。当比较SSU和CHU入院的患者时,差异有统计学意义(p <Charlson指数(1.95 vs. 2.51)、Glasgow昏迷评分(14.6 vs. 14.3)、经典脓毒症综合征(67% vs. 53%)、严重脓毒症(2.3% vs. 18%)、住院时间(4.2 vs. 10.4天)和30天内死亡率(3.4% vs. 18%)的差异均为0.05)。结论对疑似感染住院的老年患者,sssu可能是替代CHU的合适选择。
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