Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pathways as a tool to improve appropriateness in Internal Medicine Departments
AbstractIn recent decades, in the medical field, criteria and methods of decision-making have radically changed, going from an environment dominated by opinions and knowledge transmitted from experts to a context of evidence-based medicine, that finds its practical realization in the drafting of guidelines (GL). However, GL have a poor implementation in the real world for several factors. In the field of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there are already many GL, international, national, regional and by specific scientific societies. This multiplicity, while it responds to the legitimate needs to respect the diversity of interpretation of the available scientific data, on the other hand, however, can be an element of confusion for physicians. In this varied scenery we have tried to create some new tools, easy and quick to use, in order to improve the local application of existing GL on COPD, by planning a limited number of pathways in the management of acute exacerbation of COPD, which focus on the fundamental diagnostic and therapeutic aspects, as a tool to improve appropriateness in Internal Medicine Departments. These pathways, reported on individual sheets, which can be distributed to medical personnel of wards/units involved in the care of patients with COPD (First Aid, Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, Pulmonology, Intensive Respiratory Care Unit, Resuscitation), are useful to support the physician in the decision-making process and help you to resolve any disputes.
PlumX Metrics provide insights into the ways people interact with individual pieces of research output (articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and many more) in the online environment. Examples include, when research is mentioned in the news or is tweeted about. Collectively known as PlumX Metrics, these metrics are divided into five categories to help make sense of the huge amounts of data involved and to enable analysis by comparing like with like.
Copyright (c) 2014 Francesco Ventrella, Franco Mastroianni, Massimo Errico
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.