medigraphic.com

2015, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2015; 53 (6)

Perception of medical emergencies in a private pediatric hospital

González-López RA, Iglesias-Leboreiro J, Bernárdez-Zapata MI, Testas-Hermo M, Rendón-Macías ME

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 710-714
PDF size: 274.04 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this study was to determine if the care of child patients on admission, coincides with perception of real urgency on the part of parents with that of the doctor and not because of perceived worry in the family (perceived emergencies).
Methods: All the care given in the emergency department, from January 1st 2009 to December 31st 2010, was analyzed. A real urgency was determined by consensus on the conditions of the child. Sociodemographic of real urgency conditions were compared against those perceived.
Results: 8,888 consultations were given, of which 2,024 (22.7 %) met criteria for real urgency. The main causes of real urgency were infectious diseases were followed by accidents and poisoning. Of real emergencies 17 (1 %) eventually required intensive management. Factors associated with real urgency were age, non-infectious disease, occurring between Monday to Friday, during the morning shift and in the winter months.
Conclusions: The frequency of care for real urgency was low compared to that reported in other pediatric centers. Restructuring of pre-consultation services for the implementation of optimal patient classification before going to emergency helps greatly to optimize the use of the emergency department, deriving the patients in true need sooner.


REFERENCES

  1. García-Pachón E, Padilla-Navas I. El factor de impacto y el índice h de las revistas biomédicas españolas. Med Clin (Barc). 2013.

  2. Editorial. Not-so-deep impact. Research assessment rests too heavily on the inflated status of the impact factor.Nature.2005;435:1003–1004.

  3. www.conacyt.gob.mx/sni/paginas/default.aspx

  4. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS. 2005;102:16569-16572.

  5. Costas R, Bordons M. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetrics. 2007;1: 193-203.5.

  6. http://www.udg.mx/historia

  7. Romero AH, García A, Kiwi M. Evaluation of the scientific impact, productivity and biological age based upon the h-index in three Latin American countries: the materials science case. Ann Phys (Berlin). 2009; 18:198-205.

  8. Minasny B, Hartemink AE, McBratney A, Hang H. Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.Peer J. 2013;1: e183.

  9. Cabezas-Clavijo A, Delgado-López-Cózar E. Google Scholar e índice h en biomedicina: la popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica. Med Intensiva. 2013;37:343-354.

  10. Kellner AWA, Ponciano LCMO. H-index in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences – comments and concerns. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2008;80:771-781.

  11. Rivera H. El índice h: criterio necesario en la evaluación de investigadores. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2011;49:123-124.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com