FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Acute myocardial infarction diagnosis and treatment following implementation of a multicomponent intervention in Tanzania: the MIMIC pilot trial

Por: Hertz · J. T. · Nworie · J. E. · Shayo · F. · Galson · S. W. · Coaxum · L. A. · Daniel · I. · Makambay · P. S. · Akrabi · A. M. · Manyangu · G. J. · Thielman · N. M. · Bloomfield · G. · Sakita · F. M.
Background

In Tanzania, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is underdiagnosed, and uptake of evidence-based care is suboptimal. Using an implementation science approach, an intervention was developed to address local barriers to care: the Multicomponent Intervention for Improving Myocardial Infarction Care in Tanzania (MIMIC).

Methods

This sequential cohort design trial was conducted in a single northern Tanzanian emergency department (ED). During the preintervention phase (February–August 2023) and the postintervention phase (September 2023–August 2024), adults presenting with chest pain and/or dyspnoea were prospectively enrolled and their ED care was observed. AMI was defined by the Fourth Universal Definition criteria. Telephone follow-ups were conducted to ascertain 30-day mortality. Pearson’s ² was used to compare care before and after MIMIC implementation.

Results

A total of 275 participants were enrolled in the preintervention phase and 577 were enrolled in the postintervention phase. Following MIMIC implementation, significant increases were observed in ECG testing (89.4% of postintervention participants vs 55.3% preintervention, OR 6.82, 95% CI 4.79 to 9.79, p

Conclusions

The MIMIC intervention was associated with large increases in uptake of AMI testing, case identification and evidence-based treatment in a single Tanzanian ED. Multisite studies are needed to evaluate the effect of MIMIC on AMI care in diverse settings across Tanzania.

Trial registration number

NCT04563546.

A systematic review of reasons and risks for acute service use by older adult residents of long‐term care

Abstract

Aims and Objectives

To identify the reasons and/or risk factors for hospital admission and/or emergency department attendance for older (≥60 years) residents of long-term care facilities.

Background

Older adults' use of acute services is associated with significant financial and social costs. A global understanding of the reasons for the use of acute services may allow for early identification and intervention, avoid clinical deterioration, reduce the demand for health services and improve quality of life.

Design

Systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022326964) and reported following PRISMA guidelines.

Methods

The search strategy was developed in consultation with an academic librarian. The strategy used MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Articles published since 2017 in English were eligible for inclusion. CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched (11/08/22). Title, abstract, and full texts were screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria; data extraction was performed two blinded reviewers. Quality of evidence was assessed using the NewCastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).

Results

Thirty-nine articles were eligible and included in this review; included research was assessed as high-quality with a low risk of bias. Hospital admission was reported as most likely to occur during the first year of residence in long-term care. Respiratory and cardiovascular diagnoses were frequently associated with acute services use. Frailty, hypotensive medications, falls and inadequate nutrition were associated with unplanned service use.

Conclusions

Modifiable risks have been identified that may act as a trigger for assessment and be amenable to early intervention. Coordinated intervention may have significant individual, social and economic benefits.

Relevance to clinical practice

This review has identified several modifiable reasons for acute service use by older adults. Early and coordinated intervention may reduce the risk of hospital admission and/or emergency department.

Reporting method

This systematic review was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology.

Patient or public contribution

No patient or public contribution.

❌