Você pesquisou por y - Critical Care Science (CCS)
You searched for:"Suely Sueko Viski Zanei"
We found (2) results for your search.Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2012;24(4):341-346
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2012000400008
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability of the SF-36 general health questionnaire when used to evaluate the health status of critically ill patients before admission to intensive care and to measure their health-related quality of life prior to admission and its relation to severity of illness and length of stay in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Prospective cohort study conducted in the intensive care unit of a public teaching hospital. Over three months, communicative and oriented patients were interviewed within the first 72 hours of intensive care unit admission; 91 individuals participated. The APACHE II score was used to assess severity of illness, and the SF-36 questionnaire was used to measure health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The reliability of SF-36 was verified in all dimensions using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. In six dimensions of eight domains the value exceeded 0.70. The average SF-36 scores of the health-related quality of life dimensions for the patients before admission to intensive care unit were 57.8 for physical functioning, 32.4 for role-physical, 53.0 for bodily pain, 63.2 for general health, 50.6 for vitality, 56.2 for social functioning, 54.6 for role-emotional and 60.3 for mental health. The correlations between severity of illness and length of stay and the health-related quality of life scores were very low, ranging from -0.152 to 0.175 and -0.158 to 0.152, respectively, which were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In the sample studied, the SF-36 demonstrated good reliability when used to measure health-related quality of life in critically ill patients before admission to the intensive care unit. The worst score was role-physical and the best was general health. Health-related quality of life of patients before admission was not correlated with severity of illness or length of stay in the intensive care unit.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2012;24(4):341-346
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2012000400008
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability of the SF-36 general health questionnaire when used to evaluate the health status of critically ill patients before admission to intensive care and to measure their health-related quality of life prior to admission and its relation to severity of illness and length of stay in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Prospective cohort study conducted in the intensive care unit of a public teaching hospital. Over three months, communicative and oriented patients were interviewed within the first 72 hours of intensive care unit admission; 91 individuals participated. The APACHE II score was used to assess severity of illness, and the SF-36 questionnaire was used to measure health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The reliability of SF-36 was verified in all dimensions using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. In six dimensions of eight domains the value exceeded 0.70. The average SF-36 scores of the health-related quality of life dimensions for the patients before admission to intensive care unit were 57.8 for physical functioning, 32.4 for role-physical, 53.0 for bodily pain, 63.2 for general health, 50.6 for vitality, 56.2 for social functioning, 54.6 for role-emotional and 60.3 for mental health. The correlations between severity of illness and length of stay and the health-related quality of life scores were very low, ranging from -0.152 to 0.175 and -0.158 to 0.152, respectively, which were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In the sample studied, the SF-36 demonstrated good reliability when used to measure health-related quality of life in critically ill patients before admission to the intensive care unit. The worst score was role-physical and the best was general health. Health-related quality of life of patients before admission was not correlated with severity of illness or length of stay in the intensive care unit.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2009;21(1):58-64
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2009000100009
Delirium is frequently observed in intensive care unit patients and its occurrence is related to increased morbidity and mortality, length of stay, functional decline and high costs. The Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit is a tool that facilitates early identification and occurrence of delirium among intubated patients. Objective: To verify the aspects of delirium studied by means of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit. A literature review was conducted in the LILACS, MedLine, PubMed and CINAHL databases, from 2001, when the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit was validated, to 2008. Descriptors used for LILACS, MedLine and PubMed were delirium and intensive care unit, while for the CINAHL database, delirium and intensive care were used. From 293 articles, 35 were selected. The aspects analyzed disclosed, different types of delirium in different intensive care units. Variation in sensitivity was of 93% to 100% and variation in specificity, 89% to 100% of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit, an important tool for detection, characterization and control of delirium and its impact. The aspects of delirium studied by means of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit were: the performance index, identification, management, cost of treatment, morbidity and mortality due to delirium.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2009;21(1):58-64
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2009000100009
Delirium is frequently observed in intensive care unit patients and its occurrence is related to increased morbidity and mortality, length of stay, functional decline and high costs. The Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit is a tool that facilitates early identification and occurrence of delirium among intubated patients. Objective: To verify the aspects of delirium studied by means of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit. A literature review was conducted in the LILACS, MedLine, PubMed and CINAHL databases, from 2001, when the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit was validated, to 2008. Descriptors used for LILACS, MedLine and PubMed were delirium and intensive care unit, while for the CINAHL database, delirium and intensive care were used. From 293 articles, 35 were selected. The aspects analyzed disclosed, different types of delirium in different intensive care units. Variation in sensitivity was of 93% to 100% and variation in specificity, 89% to 100% of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit, an important tool for detection, characterization and control of delirium and its impact. The aspects of delirium studied by means of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit were: the performance index, identification, management, cost of treatment, morbidity and mortality due to delirium.
