Dataset Information

Pain as the fifth vital sign-A comparison between public and private healthcare systems.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The assessment of pain as the fifth vital sign (P5VS) is of paramount importance since it leads to the management of undertreated pain, consequently reducing suffering, readmissions and emergency department visits after hospital discharge.

Objective

To evaluate the implementation of P5VS in public and private hospitals.

Methods

Data analysis on validated questionnaires was sent to all 171 Portuguese hospitals via an official letter.

Results

When compared to private hospitals, public hospitals presented a higher adherence to the process related to the P5VS. It has demonstrated superiority in the charts properly placed to record P5VS, in the number of emergency departments recording P5VS, in the regularity of audits, and in the existence of guidelines and staff training on pain assessment and management.

Conclusion

The standardization of both evaluation and recording of pain intensity constitutes a measure of good clinical practice. Public hospitals demonstrated better commitment to these procedures that should be properly carried out in all health care institutions.

SUBMITTER: Pozza DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565736 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pain as the fifth vital sign-A comparison between public and private healthcare systems.

Pozza Daniel Humberto DH Azevedo Luís Filipe LF Castro Lopes José Manuel JM

PloS one 20211103 11

<h4>Background</h4>The assessment of pain as the fifth vital sign (P5VS) is of paramount importance since it leads to the management of undertreated pain, consequently reducing suffering, readmissions and emergency department visits after hospital discharge.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the implementation of P5VS in public and private hospitals.<h4>Methods</h4>Data analysis on validated questionnaires was sent to all 171 Portuguese hospitals via an official letter.<h4>Results</h4>When compared t ...[more]

PMID: 34731211

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPrivate sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries.Methods and findingsPeer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes: accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency. Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers. When the definition of "private sector" included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care. "Competitive dynamics" for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff.ConclusionsStudies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients.

Project description:ImportanceVital signs are essential components in the triage of injured children. The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) and Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) physiologic criteria are frequently used for trauma assessments.ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of ATLS and PALS criteria vs empirically derived criteria for identifying major trauma in children.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used 2021 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) data contributed by US trauma centers. Included encounters involved pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with severe injury, excluding those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, were receiving mechanical ventilation, or were transferred from another facility. Data were analyzed between April 9 and December 21, 2023.ExposureInitial hospital vital signs, including heart rate, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure (SBP).Main outcome and measuresMajor trauma, determined by the Standard Triage Assessment Tool, a composite measure of injury severity and interventions performed. Multivariable models developed from PALS and ATLS vital sign criteria were compared with models developed from the empirically derived criteria using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Validation of the findings was performed using the 2019 TQIP dataset.ResultsA total of 70 748 patients (median [IQR] age, 11 [5-15] years; 63.4% male) were included, of whom 3223 (4.6%) had major trauma. The PALS criteria classified 31.0% of heart rates, 25.7% of respiratory rates, and 57.4% of SBPs as abnormal. The ATLS criteria classified 25.3% of heart rates, 4.3% of respiratory rates, and 1.1% of SBPs as abnormal. Among children with all 3 vital signs documented (64 326 [90.9%]), PALS had a sensitivity of 88.4% (95% CI, 87.1%-89.3%) and specificity of 25.1% (95% CI, 24.7%-25.4%) for identifying major trauma, and ATLS had a sensitivity of 54.5% (95% CI, 52.7%-56.2%) and specificity of 72.9% (95% CI, 72.6%-73.3%). The empirically derived cutoff vital sign z scores had a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI, 78.5%-81.3%) and specificity of 48.7% (95% CI, 48.3%-49.1%) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 70.9% (95% CI, 69.9%-71.8%), which was similar to PALS criteria (69.6%; 95% CI, 68.6%-70.6%) and greater than ATLS criteria (65.4%; 95% CI, 64.4%-66.3%). Validation using the 2019 TQIP database showed similar performance to the derivation sample.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that empirically derived vital sign criteria strike a balance between the sensitivity of PALS criteria and the specificity of ATLS criteria in identifying major trauma in children. These criteria may help to identify children at greatest risk of trauma-related morbidity and mortality.

Dataset Information

Pain as the fifth vital sign-A comparison between public and private healthcare systems.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Pain as the fifth vital sign-A comparison between public and private healthcare systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets