Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:sec><jats:title>Aims and objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To assess the predictive value of two instruments (the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MFS</jats:styled-content>) and the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">H</jats:styled-content>eindrich <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">R</jats:styled-content>isk <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>odel (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">HFRM</jats:styled-content>)] in a <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>iddle <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">E</jats:styled-content>astern country (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">L</jats:styled-content>ebanon) and to evaluate the factors that are related to falls.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>A prospective observational cross‐sectional design was used.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Falls and fall‐related injuries in the acute care settings contribute a substantial health and economic burden on patients and organisations. Preventing falls is a priority for most healthcare organisations. While the risk of falling cannot be eliminated, it can be significantly reduced through accurate assessment of patients' risk of falling.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Data from 1815 inpatients at the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>merican <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">U</jats:styled-content>niversity of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">B</jats:styled-content>eirut <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>edical <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">C</jats:styled-content>enter (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">AUBMC</jats:styled-content>) in Lebanon were evaluated using two instruments to predict falls: the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MFS</jats:styled-content> and the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">HFRM</jats:styled-content>.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The incidence of falls was 2·7% in one year. The results indicate that while the instruments were significantly correlated, the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">HFRM</jats:styled-content> was more sensitive in predicting falls than the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MFS</jats:styled-content>. The internal consistency of both scales was moderate, but inter‐rater reliability was high. Patients using antiepileptic drugs and assistance devises had higher odds of falling.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Although both instruments were easy to use in a <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>iddle <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">E</jats:styled-content>astern country, the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">HFRM</jats:styled-content> rather than the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MFS</jats:styled-content> is recommended for inpatients in an acute care setting as it had higher sensitivity and specificity.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Relevance to clinical practice</jats:title><jats:p>It is recommended that while the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">HFRM</jats:styled-content> had adequate sensitivity, it is not seamless, and as such, nurses should not rely entirely on it. Rather, nurses should use their expert clinical judgement, their ethical obligations and cultural considerations to implement a safer environment of care for the patient.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:sec><jats:title>Aims and objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To examine the validity of the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale by analysing the electronic medical records on fall risk during different phases of hospitalisation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Regular monitoring on fall risk with a reliable and valid assessment tool is a key element in the fall prevention. In <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">K</jats:styled-content>orea, the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale is currently being used in numerous medical institutions, yet it has not been comprehensively evaluated whether it is suitable and valid.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>The study design was a retrospective case–control study.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The participants included 151 fallers and 694 nonfallers. Data were extracted from a university hospital implementing <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale in the electronic medical records between October 2010 and June 2011. The nonfallers were selected by the stratified random sampling method among the patients who were in the hospital during the same period as the fallers. The <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale scores during three different time periods of hospital stay were used for analysis: the initial assessment score upon admission, the last and the maximum scores recorded from admission to the fall or discharge.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>With the maximum <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale score and the best cut‐off point of 51, validity indicators showed the highest performance: 0·72 for sensitivity, 0·91 for specificity, 0·63 for positive predictive value, 0·94 for negative predictive value, 0·63 for <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">Y</jats:styled-content>ouden <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">I</jats:styled-content>ndex and 0·77 for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>The <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale showed relatively high predictive performance for the Korean population.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Relevance to clinical practice</jats:title><jats:p>The study results recommend practice change in fall prevention. As the validity was highest when the patient was first classified into the high‐risk group based on the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>orse <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">F</jats:styled-content>all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cale cut‐off score 51, patients classified as high risk should be placed under special nursing interventions until the day of their discharge, regardless of change in the patient state.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aims and Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>In this study, we systematically reviewed qualitative studies concerning patients' experience with medicinal cannabis (MC) use, to gain insight into the negative effects of MC.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Over the past decades, the use of MC for therapeutic purposes has increased. However, there is conflicting and insufficient data on possible negative physiological and psychological effects of MC treatment.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>A systematic review was conducted and the PRISMA guidelines were adopted. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist used to assess risk of bias in the included studies.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We included studies focusing on conventional medical treatment using cannabis‐based products, approved by a physician for a particular health issue.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Of the 1230 articles identified in the initial search, eight articles were included in the review. Following the compilation of themes in the eligible studies, six themes were identified: (1) MC approval; (2) administrative barriers; (3) social perception; (4) MC misuse/widespread effect; (5) adverse effects; and (6) dependence or addiction. These were grouped into two meta‐themes: (1) administrative and social aspects of MC use; and (2) experiences of the effects of medicinal cannabis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Our findings call for specific attention to unique consequences associated with MC use. Further research is needed in order to assess the degree to which negative experiences associated with MC use may affect various aspects of patients' medical condition.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Relevance to clinical practice</jats:title><jats:p>Describing the complex experience of MC treatment and its spectrum of consequences for patients may enable physicians, therapists and researchers to provide more attentive and accurate MC treatment to their patients.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Patient or public contribution</jats:title><jats:p>In this review, patients' narratives were explored, yet the research methods did not directly involve patients or the public.</jats:p></jats:sec>