Search

Introduction: The aim of this work is to know the proportion of inadequate urgent admissions in a general hospital., Material and Methods: A retrospective and descriptive study of patients admitted during 1,999 was performed. The Appropriatness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) was used in order to evaluate the appropriatness of the admissions., Results: Eighteen admissions (4.5%) were inadecuated. There was a higher proportion of inappropriate admission (IA) when the physician responsible of the admission was a medical specialist (internal medicine, hematology or nephrology): odds ratio 5.3 in opposite to emergency physicians (p < 0.03)., Conclusions: There was a low proportion of inadequate admissions (4.5%) and the risk of inappropriatness of the admission was major when it was ordered by a medical specialist.

Background: Only one third of patients who have suffered a myocardial infarction can benefit from thrombolytic treatment in the daily clinic practice. The aim of this study is to know the percentage of patients who were treated in a General Hospital and the main exclusion causes to receive thrombolytic treatment., Methods: A descriptive study in patients with infarction who were admitted to the Critical Care Unit of a 550 beds Hospital between September-95 and August-96., Results: 188 patients were admitted with suspicion of myocardial infarction. The 50.53% of them received thrombolytic treatment. The main exclusion causes to receive this treatment were: delay of the patient (18.10%), normal ECG or descended ST (16.50%), contraindications (8%), patient's refusal to receive treatment (0.53%) an uncertain indication of therapy (6.40%)., Conclusions: A high percentage of patients received thrombolytic therapy, maybe because these drugs can be used until 12 hours the infarction and they haven't limit of age.