Search

Objectives: Adherence problems have a great impact on auto-immune Rheumatic Diseases (AIRD). The COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened treatment adherence. The aims of this study were to measure treatment adherence to identify an earlier risk of poor adherence and measure families' satisfaction with the health service during the pandemic. Methods: Prospective observational study with 50 parents/children and adolescents with recent AIRD diagnosis. Initially, they answered questions (demographic data, disease) and completed the Pediatric Rheumatology Adherence Questionnaire (PRAQ), after 6 months they completed the Morisky-Green Test (MGT), Brief Medication Questionnaire (BMQ), Compliance Questionnaire for Rheumatology (CQR-19) and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Questionnaire 3.0 (PedsQlTMSSS). The patient's medical records from the previous 12 weeks were reviewed for global and medication adherence data. Results: The mean global adherence score was 94.3 § 10.0, for medication adherence 97.3 § 9.3, and for PRAQ questionnaire 5.2 § 1.5. The authors observed agreement between MGT, BMQ, CQR-19, PedsQLTM-SSS scores and medication adherence rate, but not with global adherence rate. There were no associations between demographic characteristics, disease diagnosis, and adherence. No associations between PRAQ scores and values and global/medication adherence rates were observed. No variables were shown to be predictors of good adherence. The mean PedsQLTM-SSS rate was 92.1 § 6.8. TagedEndTagedPConclusion: The high values of MGT, BMQ, CQR-19 questionnaire scores were in agreement with the medication adherence rate. Despite the pandemic, the global and medication adherence rates were good. It was not possible to demonstrate the PRAQ's predictive power. The authors weren't able to establish an association between families' satisfaction and treatment adherence rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Advances in medicine have increased the life expectancy of pediatric patients with chronic illnesses, and challenges with the guided transition of adolescents and young adults from pediatric clinics to adult clinics have grown. The aim of this study was to better understand readiness and factors related to this transition process in Brazil. Method: In this cross-sectional study of 308 patients aged from 16 to 21 years under follow-up in pediatric specialties, the degree of readiness for transition was assessed using the Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) and its domains. Associations with demographic data, clinical data, socio-economic level, medication adherence, family functionality, and parental satisfaction with health care were evaluated. Results: The median TRAQ score was 3.7 (3.2 - 4.2). Better readiness was associated with female patients, socio-economic class A-B, current active employment, higher level of education, not failing any school year, attending medical appointments alone, functional family, and a good knowledge of disease and medications. A low correlation was observed between TRAQ and age. TRAQ presented good internal consistency (alpha-Cronbach 0.86). In the multiple linear regression, TRAQ score showed a significant association with female gender, advanced age, socio-economic class A-B, better knowledge of disease and medications, and independence to attend appointments alone. Conclusion: TRAQ instrument can guide healthcare professionals to identify specific areas of approach, in order to support adolescents with chronic disease to set goals for their own personal development and improve their readiness to enter into the adult healthcare system. In this study, some factors were related to better TRAQ scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva is the property of Associacao de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Acta Paulista de Enfermagem is the property of Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Escola Paulista de Enfermagem and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Importance: The effectiveness of checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts as quality improvement interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain.Objective: To determine whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention reduces the mortality of critically ill adults.Design, Setting, and Participants: This study had 2 phases. Phase 1 was an observational study to assess baseline data on work climate, care processes, and clinical outcomes, conducted between August 2013 and March 2014 in 118 Brazilian ICUs. Phase 2 was a cluster randomized trial conducted between April and November 2014 with the same ICUs. The first 60 admissions of longer than 48 hours per ICU were enrolled in each phase.Interventions: Intensive care units were randomized to a quality improvement intervention, including a daily checklist and goal setting during multidisciplinary rounds with follow-up clinician prompting for 11 care processes, or to routine care.Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality truncated at 60 days (primary outcome) was analyzed using a random-effects logistic regression model, adjusted for patients' severity and the ICU's baseline standardized mortality ratio. Exploratory secondary outcomes included adherence to care processes, safety climate, and clinical events.Results: A total of 6877 patients (mean age, 59.7 years; 3218 [46.8%] women) were enrolled in the baseline (observational) phase and 6761 (mean age, 59.6 years; 3098 [45.8%] women) in the randomized phase, with 3327 patients enrolled in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to the intervention group and 3434 patients in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to routine care. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the intervention group and the usual care group, with 1096 deaths (32.9%) and 1196 deaths (34.8%), respectively (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.26; P = .88). Among 20 prespecified secondary outcomes not adjusted for multiple comparisons, 6 were significantly improved in the intervention group (use of low tidal volumes, avoidance of heavy sedation, use of central venous catheters, use of urinary catheters, perception of team work, and perception of patient safety climate), whereas there were no significant differences between the intervention group and the control group for 14 outcomes (ICU mortality, central line-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infection, mean ventilator-free days, mean ICU length of stay, mean hospital length of stay, bed elevation to ≥30°, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, diet administration, job satisfaction, stress reduction, perception of management, and perception of working conditions).Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients treated in ICUs in Brazil, implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention with daily checklists, goal setting, and clinician prompting did not reduce in-hospital mortality.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785966. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The uptake of evidence-based therapies in the intensive care environment is suboptimal, particularly in limited-resource countries. Checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts may improve compliance with best practice processes of care and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of checklists is unreliable and inconclusive, and the mechanisms are poorly understood. We aim to evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including the use of a checklist and the definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts, can improve the in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Our secondary objectives are to assess the effects of the study intervention on specific processes of care, clinical outcomes, and the safety culture and to determine which factors (the processes of care and/or safety culture) mediate the effect of the study intervention on mortality. Methods/design This is a cluster randomized trial involving 118 ICUs in Brazil conducted in two phases. In the observational preparatory phase, we collect baseline data on processes of care and clinical outcomes from 60 consecutive patients with lengths of ICU stay longer than 48 h and apply the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to 75% or more of the health care staff in each ICU. In the randomized phase, we assign ICUs to the experimental or control arm and repeat data collection. Experimental arm ICUs receive the multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including a checklist and definition of daily care goals during daily multidisciplinary rounds, clinician prompting, and feedback on rates of adherence to selected care processes. Control arm ICUs maintain usual care. The primary outcome is in-hospital mortality, truncated at 60 days. Secondary outcomes include the rates of adherence to appropriate care processes, rates of other clinical outcomes, and scores on the SAQ domains. Analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle, and the primary outcome is analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression. Discussion This is a large scale, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including checklists applied during the multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompting, can improve the adoption of proven therapies and decrease the mortality of critically ill patients. If this study finds that the intervention reduces mortality, it may be widely adopted in intensive care units, even those in limited-resource settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]