Triage and flow management in sepsis
This study compared the triage strategies and intensive care rationing between septic patients and patients with other indications of intensive care. This study included all patients with signs for intensive care, enrolled in the intensive care management system of a Brazilian tertiary public emergency hospital, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016. The intensivist periodically evaluated the requests, prioritizing them according to a semi-quantitative scale. Demographic data, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and quick SOFA (qSOFA), as well as surgical interventions, were used as possible confounding factors in the construction of incremental logistic regression models for prioritization and admission to intensive care outcomes.ResultsThe study analyzed 9195 ICU requests; septic patients accounted for 1076 cases (11.7%), 293 (27.2%) of which were regarded as priority 1. Priority 1 septic patients were more frequently hospitalized in the ICU than nonseptic patients (52.2% vs. 34.9%,p
Date: Friday, 12 13, 2019; Speaker: various; Building 38; 2nd floor conference room B
Date: Tuesday, 12 17, 2019; Speaker: Dr. Erin Beck, NINDS; Dr. Kenneth Tyler, University of Colorado School of Medicine; Building: Building 10 (Clinical Center); Lipsett Auditorium; CME Credit
Date: Tuesday, 01 07, 2020; Speaker: Daniel Neafsey, Assistant Professor, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; 5625 Fishers Lane; 5th Floor Conference Room
The holidays are often thought of as a joyful time of the year, filled with sights and sounds of seasonal cheer. Yet for people struggling with the death of a family member or loved one, the holidays can be difficult.
Enter a keyword below to find answers to your AARP Research questions. ... About three in five older workers (61%) have either seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace. ... You are l...
The editors and staff of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology would like to thank the flowing individuals who gave of their time to provide reviews of submitted manuscripts between January 1 and June 30, 2019. The high-quality manuscript reviews provided by these individuals is essentially to the peer review process so necessary for a journal like ours to provide scientifically sound as well as interesting and engaging articles for our readers. Thanks to each of you for your service.