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}
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.