巴西COVID-19大流行早期卫生资源和临床实践的全国性调查

Q2 Medicine
Pedro Paulo Zanella do Amaral Campos, Guilherme Martins de Souza, T. Midega, H. Guimarães, T. Corrêa, R. Cordioli
{"title":"巴西COVID-19大流行早期卫生资源和临床实践的全国性调查","authors":"Pedro Paulo Zanella do Amaral Campos, Guilherme Martins de Souza, T. Midega, H. Guimarães, T. Corrêa, R. Cordioli","doi":"10.5935/0103-507X.20220005-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. Results: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. Conclusion: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.","PeriodicalId":53519,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","volume":"1 1","pages":"107 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil\",\"authors\":\"Pedro Paulo Zanella do Amaral Campos, Guilherme Martins de Souza, T. Midega, H. Guimarães, T. Corrêa, R. Cordioli\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/0103-507X.20220005-en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. Results: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. Conclusion: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53519,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"107 - 115\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20220005-en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20220005-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:评价巴西COVID-19大流行早期的临床实践和医院资源组织。方法:采用多中心横断面调查。向急诊和重症监护病房的医生提供了一份电子问卷。调查包括四个领域:参与者特征、临床实践、COVID-19治疗方案和医院资源组织。结果:在2020年5月至6月期间,284名参与者[中位数(四分位数间距)为39岁(33 - 47岁),男性56.3%]回应了调查;33%是重症医师,9%是急诊医学专家。半数受访者在公立医院工作。无创通气(89%对73%;P = 0.001)和高流量鼻插管(49%对32%;P = 0.005),在私立医院比在公立医院更常见。公立医院比私立医院更常使用机械通气(70%比50%;P = 0.024)。在急诊科,呼气末正压最常根据SpO2调整,而在重症监护病房,呼气末正压根据最佳肺顺应性调整。在急诊科,25%的受访者不知道如何设定呼气末正压。与私立医院相比,公立医院在气管插管期间个人防护设备协议的可得性较低(82%对94%;P = 0.005),管理机械通气[64%对75%;P = 0.006]和脱离机械通气的患者[34%对54%;P = 0.002]。最后,与公立医院相比,私立医院的患者在转到重症监护室之前在急诊科待的时间更短[2(1 - 3)小时比5(2 - 24)小时];P < 0.001]。结论:本调查揭示了巴西早期COVID-19大流行期间医院资源组织、临床实践和医生治疗的显著异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil
Objective: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. Results: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. Conclusion: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.
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
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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