重新制定SARS-CoV-2大流行期间的实时随机安全性分析。

Gonzalo Sirgo, Manuel A Samper, Julen Berrueta, Joana Cañellas, Alejandro Rodríguez, María Bodí
{"title":"重新制定SARS-CoV-2大流行期间的实时随机安全性分析。","authors":"Gonzalo Sirgo, Manuel A Samper, Julen Berrueta, Joana Cañellas, Alejandro Rodríguez, María Bodí","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2024.502117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>From a safety perspective, the pandemic imposed atypical work dynamics that led to noticeable gaps in clinical safety across all levels of health care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To verify that Real-Time Random Safety Analyses (AASTRE) are feasible and useful in a high-pressure care setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective study (January-September 2022).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University Hospital with 350 beds. Two mixed ICUs (12 and 14 beds).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Two safety audits per week were planned to determine the feasibility and usefulness of the 32 safety measures (grouped into 8 blocks).</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>1) Feasibility: Proportion of completed audits compared to scheduled audits and time spent. 2) Utility: Changes in the care process made as a result of implementing AASTRE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 390 patient-days were analyzed (179 were Non-COVID patients and 49 were COVID patients). In the COVID patient subgroup, age, ICU stay, SAPS 3, and ICU mortality were significantly higher compared to the Non-COVID patient subgroup. Regarding feasibility, 93.8% of planned rounds were carried out with an average audit time of 25 ± 8 min. Overall, changes in the care process were made in 11.8% of the measures analyzed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a high-complexity care environment, AASTRE proved to be a feasible and useful tool with only two interventions per week lasting less than 30 min. Overall, AASTRE allowed unsafe situations to be turned safe in more than 10% of the evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":"502117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reformulating real-time random safety analysis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Gonzalo Sirgo, Manuel A Samper, Julen Berrueta, Joana Cañellas, Alejandro Rodríguez, María Bodí\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.medine.2024.502117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>From a safety perspective, the pandemic imposed atypical work dynamics that led to noticeable gaps in clinical safety across all levels of health care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To verify that Real-Time Random Safety Analyses (AASTRE) are feasible and useful in a high-pressure care setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective study (January-September 2022).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University Hospital with 350 beds. Two mixed ICUs (12 and 14 beds).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Two safety audits per week were planned to determine the feasibility and usefulness of the 32 safety measures (grouped into 8 blocks).</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>1) Feasibility: Proportion of completed audits compared to scheduled audits and time spent. 2) Utility: Changes in the care process made as a result of implementing AASTRE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 390 patient-days were analyzed (179 were Non-COVID patients and 49 were COVID patients). In the COVID patient subgroup, age, ICU stay, SAPS 3, and ICU mortality were significantly higher compared to the Non-COVID patient subgroup. Regarding feasibility, 93.8% of planned rounds were carried out with an average audit time of 25 ± 8 min. Overall, changes in the care process were made in 11.8% of the measures analyzed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a high-complexity care environment, AASTRE proved to be a feasible and useful tool with only two interventions per week lasting less than 30 min. Overall, AASTRE allowed unsafe situations to be turned safe in more than 10% of the evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina intensiva\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"502117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina intensiva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2024.502117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2024.502117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:从安全角度来看,大流行带来了非典型的工作动态,导致各级卫生保健在临床安全方面存在明显差距。目的:验证实时随机安全分析(AASTRE)在高压护理环境中的可行性和实用性。设计:前瞻性研究(2022年1月- 9月)。单位:大学医院,350张床位。2个混合icu(12床和14床)。干预措施:计划每周进行两次安全审核,以确定32项安全措施(分为8个区块)的可行性和有效性。主要感兴趣的变量:1)可行性:完成审核与计划审核的比例和花费的时间。2)效用:由于AASTRE的实施,护理过程发生了变化。结果:共分析390个患者日(其中非COVID患者179例,COVID患者49例)。在COVID患者亚组中,年龄、ICU住院时间、SAPS 3和ICU死亡率均显著高于非COVID患者亚组。在可行性方面,93.8%的计划轮次被执行,平均审计时间为25 ± 8 min。总体而言,11.8%的分析措施改变了护理过程。结论:在高度复杂的护理环境中,AASTRE被证明是一种可行且有用的工具,每周仅需两次干预,持续时间不超过30 min。总的来说,AASTRE在超过10%的评估中允许不安全的情况变成安全的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reformulating real-time random safety analysis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Introduction: From a safety perspective, the pandemic imposed atypical work dynamics that led to noticeable gaps in clinical safety across all levels of health care.

Objectives: To verify that Real-Time Random Safety Analyses (AASTRE) are feasible and useful in a high-pressure care setting.

Design: Prospective study (January-September 2022).

Setting: University Hospital with 350 beds. Two mixed ICUs (12 and 14 beds).

Interventions: Two safety audits per week were planned to determine the feasibility and usefulness of the 32 safety measures (grouped into 8 blocks).

Main variables of interest: 1) Feasibility: Proportion of completed audits compared to scheduled audits and time spent. 2) Utility: Changes in the care process made as a result of implementing AASTRE.

Results: A total of 390 patient-days were analyzed (179 were Non-COVID patients and 49 were COVID patients). In the COVID patient subgroup, age, ICU stay, SAPS 3, and ICU mortality were significantly higher compared to the Non-COVID patient subgroup. Regarding feasibility, 93.8% of planned rounds were carried out with an average audit time of 25 ± 8 min. Overall, changes in the care process were made in 11.8% of the measures analyzed.

Conclusions: In a high-complexity care environment, AASTRE proved to be a feasible and useful tool with only two interventions per week lasting less than 30 min. Overall, AASTRE allowed unsafe situations to be turned safe in more than 10% of the evaluations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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