Spain has become one of the countries most affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the highest testing rates, and one of the worst-performing countries in the fight against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. There are no studies related to the consumption of health resources and the economic cost of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We present a retrospective analysis of 9,811 (Primary Care and Hospital) patients which aimed to estimate public health expenditure by the consumption of health resources due to COVID-19. According to the results, the gender distribution of patients has a similar rate in both groups, with slightly higher rates in women. Similarly, age is the same in both groups, with a median of 62 years in the case of hospitalizations and 61 years in the case of primary care; using a weighted average of these rates and costs, we can estimate that the average cost of care per patient infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regardless of the course is €2373.24. We conclude that a patient with COVID-19 without hospitalization costs €729.79, while the expenses of a hospitalized patient are between €4294.36 and €14440.68, if there is ICU admission.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
In 2007, the World Health Organization initiated the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) as part of an initiative to improve patient outcomes. After publication of the SSC, perioperative nurses identified challenges with implementing it and questioned its effectiveness. We desired to summarize the state of the science on the effectiveness of strategies that perioperative personnel have used to implement and assess the SSC; therefore, we conducted a scoping review. We searched several databases and identified 28 articles that described the three key stages of SSC implementation (ie, before, during, and after). Half of the identified articles addressed intervention strategies and most articles provided strategies for SSC implementation. The literature also indicated that effective implementation occurred when there was adequate planning. Perioperative leaders should work with nurses when implementing the SSC and monitor its use after implementation to verify compliance and help prevent negative patient outcomes.
Background The increase in admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and the morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection pose a challenge to the analysis of evidence of health interventions carried out in ICUs. One of the most common interventions in patients infected with the virus and admitted to ICUs is endotracheal aspiration. Endotracheal suctioning has also been considered one of the most contaminating interventions. Objective This review aims to analyze the benefits and risks of endotracheal suctioning using closed suction systems (CSS) in COVID-19 patients. Methods A rapid review was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, and IBECS. The data search included articles in English and Spanish, published between 2010 and 2020, concerning adult patients, and using the key words “endotracheal,” “suction,” and “closed system.” Results A total of 15 articles were included. The benefits and risks were divided into 3 categories: patient, care, and organization. Relating to the patient, we found differences in cardiorespiratory variables and changes in the ventilator, for example, improvement in patients with elevated positive and end-expiratory pressure due to maladaptation and alveolar collapse. Relating to care, we found a shorter suctioning time, by up to 1 minute. Relating to organization, we found fewer microorganisms on staff gloves. Other conflicting results between studies were related to ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacterial colonization, or mortality. Conclusions Aside from the need for quality research comparing open suction systems and CSS as used to treat COVID-19 patients, closed endotracheal suctioning has benefits in terms of shorter stay in the ICU and reduced environmental contamination, preventing ventilator disconnection from the patient, reducing the suctioning time—though it does produce the greatest number of mucosal occlusions—and preventing interpatient and patient-staff environmental contamination. New evidence in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is required in order to compare results and establish new guidelines.
BACKGROUND In 2020, the increase in admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) and the morbidity and mortality of the disease pose a challenge to the analysis of evidence of health interventions carried out in ICUs. One of the most common interventions in patients admitted to ICUs for covid19 is endotracheal aspiration. Endotracheal suctioning has also been considered one of the most contaminating interventions. OBJECTIVE To analyse the benefits and risk of endotracheal suctioning using closed suction systems (CSS), with application to the COVID- 19 patients. METHODS A Rapid Review was carried out using the following databases: Pubmed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, Cochrane Library and IBECS. It included articles in English and Spanish, published between 2010 and 2020, concerning adult patients and using the key words “endotracheal”, “suction” and “closed system”. RESULTS A total of 15 articles are included. The benefits and risks have been divided into three categories: relating to the patient, care and organisation. The most noteworthy benefits of CSSs are: preventing the ventilator from disconnecting from the patient, reducing the time taken to use the suctioning technique albeit that it produces the greatest number of mucosal occlusions, and avoiding inter-patient and patient-staff environmental contamination. CONCLUSIONS Aside from the need for quality research comparing open suction systems (OSS) and CSSs, in the case of COVID-19 patients, closed endotracheal suctioning has benefits related to ICU stay times and, above all, the reduction of environmental contamination. New evidence in the COVID-19 context should be generated to compare results and establish new indicators for guidelines. CLINICALTRIAL None
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.