Compliance evaluation of “do not do” recommendations of the Spanish Society of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

e201911089

Authors

  • Elena Pérez Galende Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. Madrid. España.
  • Miguel Ruiz Álvarez Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. Madrid. España.
  • Laura Tejedor Romero Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. Madrid. España.
  • Ana María Fernández-Braso Arranz Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. Madrid. España.
  • Mercedes Vinuesa Sebastián Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. Madrid. España.
  • José Ramón Villagrasa Ferrer Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. Madrid. España.

Keywords:

Patient security, Total quality management, Quality of health care, Quality assurance, Health care, Effectiveness, Efficiency

Abstract

Background: The reduction of unnecessary health interventions determines good care quality. The objective of this work was to evaluate the compliance of the do not do recommendations proposed by the Spanish Society of Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Hygiene.

Methods: Prospective, observational, descriptive study of patients admitted to the La Princesa University Hospital between December 2018 and January 2019. The compliance of each recommendation in different patients was analyzed. The quantitative variables are expressed as means and standard deviation and the qualitative values as percentages and confidence interval.

Results: In Recommendation 1 (R1: Do not remove hair systematically), 231 interventions were studied and the compliance was of 100% (95% CI: 98.27-100). In Recommendation 2 (R2: Do not maintain antibiotics for more than 48 hours, unless evidence of infection), 201 interventions were studied and the compliance was of 93.53% (95% CI: 90.09-96.91). In Recommendation 3 (R3: Do not analyze C. difficile toxin in asymptomatic patients), 200 determinations were studied and the compliance was of 93.5% (95% CI: 90.08-96.92). In Recommendation 4 (R4: Do not do routine nasal decolonization), 167 interventions were recruited and the compliance was of 100% (95% CI: 97.6-100). In Recommendation 5 (R5: Do not perform routine replacement of peripheral venous catheter every 72-96 hours), 153 patients were studied in compliance with the recommendation of 98.04% (95% CI: 94.12-99.35).

Conclusions: A 100% compliance was found in Recommendations 1 and 4. There is an opportunity of improvement in the recommendations R2, R3 and R5.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

García Alegría J. Compromiso por la Calidad de las Sociedades Científicas en España. Galicia Clin 2014; 75 (2): 56-57.

Organización Medica Colegial. Código de Deontología y Etica Médica. Madrid 2018.

Choosing Wisely. [Consultado en mayo de 2019]. Disponible en: https://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Choosing-Wisely-Recommendations.pdf.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Clinical Guideline (CG74). Prevention and treatment of surgical infection (2008). Last Update Feb 2017.

Fundación American Board of Internal Medicine, la Fundación American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, Federación Europea de Medicina Interna. La profesión médica en el nuevo milenio: estatutos para la regulación de la práctica médica. Med Clin (Barc) 2002; 118: 704-6.

Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Compromiso por la Calidad de las Sociedades Científicas en España. Disponible en: http://www.mscbs.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/cal_sscc.htm.

Palmer RH. Evaluación de la asistencia ambulatoria. Principios y práctica. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, 1989; 23-43.

Rodríguez Pérez MP. Grande Armesto M. Calidad asistencial: Concepto, dimensiones y desarrollo operativo. Madrid: Escuela Nacional de Sanidad; 2014 [consultado abril 2019]. Tema 14.1.

García-Alegría J et al. Compromiso por la calidad de las sociedades científicas en España. Rev Clin Esp. 2017.

Lefebvre A, Saliou P, Lucet JC, Mimoz O, Keita-Perse O, Grandbastien B et al. Preoperative hair removal and surgical site infections: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hosp Infect 2015;91:100-8. 2.

Tanner J, Norrie P, Melen K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011,Issue 11. Art No CD004122.

CDC. Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Website: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf.

Elligsen M, Walker SA, Pinto R et al. Audit and feedback to reduce broad-spectrum antibiotic use among intensive care unit patients: a controlled interrupted time series analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012; 33:354–361.

Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Website: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf.

Peterson LR, Robicsek A. Does my patient have Clostridium difficile infection?. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:176–179.

Bates DW, Goldman L, Lee TH. Contaminant blood cultures and resource utilization: the true consequences of false-positive results. JAMA 1991;265:365–369.

Morgan DJ, Croft LD, Deloney V, Popovich KJ, Crnich C, Srinivasan A, Fishman NO, Bryant K, Cosgrove SE, Leekha S. Choosing Wisely in Healthcare Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Stewardship. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:755-760.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Clinical Guideline (NG125). Surgical Site Infections: Prevention and treatment (2019).

Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail MR, French V, Foster L, Gallagher P, Gowardman JR, Zhang L, McClymont A, Whitby M. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet 2012; 22;380(9847):1066-74.

Tuffaha HW, Rickard CM, Webster J et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Clinically Indicated Versus Routine Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2014;12:51.

Downloads

Published

2019-11-28

How to Cite

1.
Pérez Galende E, Ruiz Álvarez M, Tejedor Romero L, Fernández-Braso Arranz AM, Vinuesa Sebastián M, Villagrasa Ferrer JR. Compliance evaluation of “do not do” recommendations of the Spanish Society of Preventive Medicine and Public Health: e201911089. Rev Esp Salud Pública [Internet]. 2019 Nov. 28 [cited 2025 May 17];93:13 páginas. Available from: https://ojs.sanidad.gob.es/index.php/resp/article/view/1234

Issue

Vol. 93 (2019)

Section

Originales breves

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Elena Pérez Galende, Miguel Ruiz Álvarez, Laura Tejedor Romero, Ana María Fernández-Braso Arranz, Mercedes Vinuesa Sebastián, José Ramón Villagrasa Ferrer

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Usted es libre de:
Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato.
La licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades en tanto usted siga los términos de la licencia.

Bajo los siguientes términos:
Atribución — Usted debe dar crédito de manera adecuada , brindar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que usted o su uso tienen el apoyo de la licenciante.

NoComercial — Usted no puede hacer uso del material con propósitos comerciales.

SinDerivadas — Si remezcla, transforma o crea a partir del material, no podrá distribuir el material modificado.

No hay restricciones adicionales — No puede aplicar términos legales ni medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otras a hacer cualquier uso permitido por la licencia.

Avisos:
No tiene que cumplir con la licencia para elementos del material en el dominio público o cuando su uso esté permitido por una excepción o limitación aplicable.

No se dan garantías. La licencia podría no darle todos los permisos que necesita para el uso que tenga previsto. Por ejemplo, otros derechos como publicidad, privacidad, o derechos morales pueden limitar la forma en que utilice el material.

Most read articles by the same author(s)