Espinel-Bermúdez MC, Sánchez-García S, Juárez-Cedillo T, García-González JJ, Viveros-Pérez Á, García-Peña C

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 17-25
PDF size: 259.12 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To evaluate the impact of the ADEC program (acronym in Spanish) as compared with the typical care provided to disabled elderly affiliated with the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS). Material and Methods. Prospective cohort at three months after discharge from two general hospitals in Mexico City. A total of 130 patients with functional dependency were studied, 70 in the ADEC program and 60 with typical care. Impact was measured using hospital readmissions and quality of life based on the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). Results. Average age was 74 (61/103) years and 60% were women. The main diagnosis was cerebrovascular disease (30.77%). The quality of life in the psychosocial dimension improved for the ADEC group (from 46.26 (±13.85) to 29.45(±16.48) as compared with 47.03 (±16.47) to 42.36 (±16.35) for those receiving typical care (p‹0.05). No differences were found regarding hospital readmissions. (p›0.05). Conclusions. HC program improved the psychosocial dimension of quality of life.

REFERENCES

1. Douglas SL, Daly BJ, Kelley CG, O’Toole E, Montenegro H. Chronically Critically Ill Patients: Health-Related Quality of Life and Resource Use After a Disease Management Intervention. Am J Critical Care 2007:16:447-457.

2. Lynn J, Adamson DM. Adapting Health Care to Serious Chronic Illness in Old Age. California: RAND white papers, 2003: 1-19.

3. Baumgarten M, Lebel P, Laprise H, Leclerc Ch, Quinn Ch. Adult day care for the frail elderly: outcomes, satisfaction, and cost. J Aging Health 2002;14:237-259.

4. Van Haastregt J, Diederiks JPM, van Rossum E, de Witte LP, Crebolder H. Effects of preventive home visits to elderly people living in the community: systematic review. Brit Med Journal 2000;320:754-758.

5. Elkan R, Kendrick D, Dewey M, Hewitt M, Robinson J, Blair M, et al. Effectiveness of home based support for older people: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J 2001;323:719

6. Shepperd S, Iliffe S. Hospital domiciliario versus atención hospitalaria estándar (Cochrane Review). En: La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus, 2008, Issue 3, CD000356

7. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, Manheim L, Henderson W, Kubal JD, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA 2000;284:2877-2885.

8. Sherwood S, Morris JN. The Pennsylvania domiciliary care experiment: I. Impact on quality of life. Am J Public Health 1983;73:646-653

9. Constantino P, Muñoz M, Garduño J. Evaluación económica del Programa Atención Domiciliaria a pacientes con enfermedades crónicas y terminales. En: Duran L,Muñoz O (Eds). Retos de la seguridad social en salud en el siglo XXI: Evaluación y Gestión Tecnológica. México: IMSS, 2002:113-122.

10. Morales-Palomo T, Villareal-Ríos E. Impacto de la enseñanza a familiares de pacientes del programa Atención Domiciliaria al Enfermo Crónico ADEC. Revista de Salud Pública y Nutrición 2002;e(2).

11. Calderón A, Martínez LJ, Medrano RM, Vázquez M. Grado de dependencia y capacidades de auto cuidado del paciente adscrito al programa de atención domiciliaria al enfermo crónico (ADEC). Revista de la Facultad de Salud Pública y Nutrición de la Universidad de Nuevo León 2002:(2).

12. Barrera C, Hernández C. Evaluación de la satisfacción de los pacientes pos operados de patología traumática y ortopédica de extremidad pélvica con atención médica domiciliaria versus consulta externa. Acta Ortopédica Mex 2004;18:33-36.

13. Programa de Atención Domiciliaria al Enfermo Crónico (ADEC). Documento institucional de Divulgación Interna. México: IMSS, 1990.

14. Reyes-Beaman S, Beaman PE, García-Peña C, Villa MA, Heres J, Cordova A, et al. Validation of a modified versión of the Minimental State Examination (MMSE) in Spanish. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2004; 11:1-11.

15. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jacksion BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of Illness in the Aged. The index of ADL: A Standarized measure of Biological and Psychosocial Function. JAMA 1963;185:94-99.

16. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of health status measure. Med Care 1981;19:787-805.

17. García-Peña C, Reyes H, Garduño J, Fajardo A, Martinez C. La calidad de vida en el paciente diabético tipo II y factores relacionados. Rev Med IMSS 1995; 33:293-298.

18. Badia J, Alonso Y. Validity and Reproducibility of the Spanish Version of the Sickness Impact Profile. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:359-365.

19. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales Kl, MacKenzie R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Diseases 1987;40:373-383.

20. Smith A, Carusone S, Willison K, Babineau T, Smith S, Abernathy T, et al. Hospitalization and emergency department visits among seniors receiving homecare: a pilot study. BMC Geriatrics 2005;5(9).

21. Stuck A, Egger M, Hammer A, Minder C, Beck J. Home Visits to Prevent Nursing Home Admission and Functional Decline in Elderly People. JAMA 2002; 287:1022-1028.

22. Esbensen BA, Osterlind K, Hallberg IR. Quality of life of elderly persons with cancer: a 3-month follow-up. Cancer Nurs 2006;29:214-224.

23. Schulz R, Belle S, Czaja S, McGinnis K, Stevens A, Zhang S. Long-term Care Placement of Dementia Patients and Caregiver Health and Well-being. JAMA 2004;292:961-967.