Search

Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department., Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritisation level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritisation order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round., Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analysing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority., Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP Indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritised by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (S.E.F.H). All rights reserved.)

Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department., Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round., Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority., Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (S.E.F.H). All rights reserved.)

Aim: To explore the influence of anxiety/depression symptoms and social risk in patients older than 65 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) both in non-adherence to pharmacological treatment (Non-AdhT) and in poor control of T2DM., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting and Participants: Adults over 65 years of age with T2DM treated at the Madrid Primary Care Service., Main Measurements: Data collection: Electronic Health Record database., Variables: Poor control of T2DM (HBA1c) and Non-AdhT (Morisky-Green test); main clinical variables: symptoms of depression/anxiety and social risk. Global multivariate logistic regression models and disaggregated by sex were used to Non-AdhT and poor T2DM control., Results: Data were obtained on 884 subjects. Non-AdhT prevalence: 4.4%; prevalence of poor T2DM control: 37.2%. Multivariate logistic regression models for No-AdhT in men showed a higher risk if they had symptoms of anxiety/depression (OR: 3.88; 95%CI: 1.15-13.07); and in women, if they had social risk (OR: 5.61; 95%CI: 1.86-16.94). Multivariate logistic regression models for poor control of T2DM in men revealed a higher risk if they did not have AdhT (OR: 3.53; 95%CI: 1.04-12.02)., Conclusions: In people over 65 years with T2DM, although Non-AdhT is low, the prevalence of poor T2DM control is high. Symptoms of depression or anxiety are a risk factor to Non-AdhT in men, while social risk has the same effect in women. Non-AdhT in men increases the risk of poor T2DM control. From a gender perspective, it is important to detect social and mental health problems in older adults with diabetes and to reinforce strategies to improve their adherence to drug treatment in these patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To perform a concurrent validation of the short version of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST), used to detect intimate partner violence, estimating the validity indexes in the general population., Method: The information source was the third Intimate partner violence survey in the Region of Madrid (Spain) conducted on women aged 18-70 in 2014. As the gold standard we used the definition of intimate partner violence based on a 26- question survey. The short version of WAST includes two questions with three possible answers. The prevalence of intimate partner violence and the validity indexes were calculated and compared according to two scoring criteria with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI)., Results: The response rate was 60.0%, and 2979 surveys were analysed. The prevalence of intimate partner violence was 7.6% (95%CI: 6.6-8.5). We showed 21.1% (95%CI: 19.6-22.5) positive test results according to WAST criterion 1 and 11.0% (95%CI: 9.9-12.1) according to criterion 2. Criterion 2 presented higher overall efficiency of the test (81.5% [95%CI: 80.1-82.9] criterion 1 vs. 88.8% [95%CI: 87.7-89.9] criterion 2). The best indexes were obtained in women ≥30 years old., Conclusions: The short version of the WAST showed acceptable validity indexes for use as a screening tool of intimate partner violence in the general population. We recommend using scoring criterion 2 to estimate prevalence of intimate partner violence in surveys on the general population., (Copyright © 2019 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To quantify the effect of the inclusion of the population in collective dwellings on the estimation of mortality risk in the census areas of the Basque Country (Spain) for the main causes of mortality in the period 1996-2003., Method: Small-area ecological cross-sectional study. The main causes of mortality by sex were analyzed., Results: When the general effect on all areas with a a population in collective dwellings was analyzed, hardly any noticeable effect was seen on either men or women. On the other hand, an effect was found when selecting the areas where the population in collective dwellings is more than 10% of the area's population., Conclusions: The effect of the inclusion of the population in collective dwellings clearly seen in causes of mortality, such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, related to greater dependence or frailty, and therefore related to being in a nursing or elderly persons' home, over-estimating the risk of mortality by approximately 8% and 4%, respectively, in these geographical areas., (Copyright © 2019 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)