LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 2 of total 2

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Clinical debriefing during the COVID-19 pandemic: hurdles and opportunities for healthcare teams.

    Stafford, Jody L / Leon-Castelao, Esther / Klein Ikkink, Albert J / Qvindesland, Sigrun A / Garcia-Font, Munt / Szyld, Demian / Diaz-Navarro, Cristina

    Advances in simulation (London, England)

    2021  Volume 6, Issue 1, Page(s) 32

    Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent pressures on healthcare staff and resources have exacerbated the need for clinical teams to reflect and learn from workplace experiences. Surges in critically ill patients, the impact of the disease on the ... ...

    Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent pressures on healthcare staff and resources have exacerbated the need for clinical teams to reflect and learn from workplace experiences. Surges in critically ill patients, the impact of the disease on the workforce and long term adjustments in work and life have upturned our normality. Whilst this situation has generated a new 'connectedness' within healthcare workers, it also continues to test our resilience.An international multi-professional collaboration has guided the identification of ongoing difficulties to effective communication and debriefing, as well as emerging opportunities to promote a culture of dialogue. This article outlines pandemic related barriers and new possibilities categorising them according to task management, teamwork, situational awareness and decision making. It describes their direct and indirect impact on clinical debriefing and signposts towards solutions to overcome challenges and, building on new bridges, advance team conversations that allow us to learn, improve and support each other.This pandemic has brought clinical professionals together; nevertheless, it is essential to invest in further developing and supporting cohesive teams. Debriefing enables healthcare teams and educators to mitigate stress, build resilience and promote a culture of continuous learning and patient care improvement.
    Language English
    Publishing date 2021-09-15
    Publishing country England
    Document type Letter
    ISSN 2059-0628
    ISSN (online) 2059-0628
    DOI 10.1186/s41077-021-00182-0
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Mechanical assist devices for acute cardiogenic shock.

    Ni hIci, Tamara / Boardman, Henry Mp / Baig, Kamran / Stafford, Jody L / Cernei, Cristina / Bodger, Owen / Westaby, Stephen

    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

    2020  Volume 6, Page(s) CD013002

    Abstract: Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac disorder. For people with refractory CS despite maximal vasopressors, inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump, mortality approaches 100%. ... ...

    Abstract Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac disorder. For people with refractory CS despite maximal vasopressors, inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump, mortality approaches 100%. Mechanical assist devices provide mechanical circulatory support (MCS) which has the ability to maintain vital organ perfusion, to unload the failing ventricle thus reduce intracardiac filling pressures which reduces pulmonary congestion, myocardial wall stress and myocardial oxygen consumption. This has been hypothesised to allow time for myocardial recovery (bridge to recovery) or allow time to come to a decision as to whether the person is a candidate for a longer-term ventricular assist device (VAD) either as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy with a long-term VAD.
    Objectives: To assess whether mechanical assist devices improve survival in people with acute cardiogenic shock.
    Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection in November 2019. In addition, we searched three trials registers in August 2019. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. There were no language restrictions.
    Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials on people with acute CS comparing mechanical assist devices with best current intensive care management, including intra-aortic balloon pump and inotropic support.
    Data collection and analysis: We performed data collection and analysis according to the published protocol. Primary outcomes were survival to discharge, 30 days, 1 year and secondary outcomes included, quality of life, major adverse cardiovascular events (30 days/end of follow-up), dialysis-dependent (30 days/end of follow-up), length of hospital stay and length of intensive care unit stay and major adverse events. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
    Main results: The search identified five studies from 4534 original citations reviewed. Two studies included acute CS of all causes randomised to treatment using TandemHeart percutaneous VAD and three studies included people with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction who were randomised to Impella CP or best medical management. Meta-analysis was performed only to assess the 30-day survival as there were insufficient data to perform any further meta-analyses. The results from the five studies with 162 participants showed mechanical assist devices may have little or no effect on 30-day survival (RR of 1.01 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35) but the evidence is very uncertain. Complications such as sepsis, thromboembolic phenomena, bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events were not infrequent in both the MAD and control group across the studies, but these could not be pooled due to inconsistencies in adverse event definitions and reporting. We identified four randomised control trials assessing mechanical assist devices in acute CS that are currently ongoing.
    Authors' conclusions: There is no evidence from this review of a benefit from MCS in improving survival for people with acute CS. Further use of the technology, risk stratification and optimising the use protocols have been highlighted as potential reasons for lack of benefit and are being addressed in the current ongoing clinical trials.
    MeSH term(s) Acute Disease ; Coronary Care Units/statistics & numerical data ; Heart-Assist Devices/adverse effects ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Quality of Life ; Renal Dialysis/statistics & numerical data ; Shock, Cardiogenic/mortality ; Shock, Cardiogenic/therapy
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-06-04
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article ; Meta-Analysis ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't ; Systematic Review
    ISSN 1469-493X
    ISSN (online) 1469-493X
    DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD013002.pub2
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top