Les bouchées enrichies adaptées,un outil à la portée des établissements sanitaires et médico-sociaux ainsi que des aidants familiaux : retour d’expérience

IntroductionFor many years, nutrition of the elderly is of a special attention. The food policies wants to value the regional initiatives that can be slowed down, and new techniques of adapted food are in development. Following a tracking of malnutrition in an establishment for dependent elderly, a program of nutritional improvement was set up. It was decided to transform the dishes of the daily menu into small enriched, mixed, prehensile mouthfuls, with for objective to use the remaining capacities of the patients, to adapt the care to their rhythm, to answer their expectations and their nutritional needs.MethodThe agents of texture of the mouthfuls were adapted. Their enrichment and their presentation were specified, as well as the modalities of distribution, in order to allow an easy access as well by the patients, the nursing and the families. Cooled cupboards were used.ResultsThe residents found again the pleasure to eat by themselves, their self-respect and consequently covered better their needs. A decrease of the malnutrition prevalence was observed. Times of exchange with other establishments and a formation were set up to share this tool. Levers were identified to develop this concept under good conditions.ConclusionThe adapted enriched mouthfuls tool seems to be useful. Its application is inseparable of a voluntary multidisciplinary approach, anchored in the knowledge of the accompanied person and in the analysis of her global situation. This tool is adaptable not only in any structure welcoming dependent, old people or not, but also at home.     

不同剂量地佐辛术后镇痛对老年患者肝功能的影响

目的 探讨地佐辛术后镇痛对高龄患者围术期肝功能的影响。方法 选择2018 年1 月～2020 年6 月吉安市中心人民医院麻醉科收治的ASA 分级Ⅱ～Ⅲ级高龄患者80 例，按照随机数字表法，分为A 组、B 组、C 组、D 组，每组各20 例。分别给予0.4 mg/kg、0.5 mg/kg、0.6 mg/kg、0.7 mg/kg 地佐辛进行术后镇痛，评估术后1、2、6、12、24、48 h 患者的疼痛程度[视觉模拟评分法（VAS）]、术后镇静效果（Ramsay 评分法）及肝功能指标（ALT、AST）水平，评价不同剂量的地佐辛术后镇痛对高龄患者围术期肝功能的影响。结果 C 组术后患者不同时间段VAS 疼痛评分低于A 组、B 组、D 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；四组患者术后1、2、6 h Ramsay 镇静评分比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；但术后12、24、48 h Ramay 镇痛评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。C 组肝功能指标ALT、AST优于A 组、B 组、D 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 高龄患者术后镇痛应用0.6 mg/kg地佐辛对围术期肝功能的影响最小。     

Use of a Checklist During Observation of a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Scenario Does Not Improve Time to CPR and Defibrillation Over Observation Alone for Subsequent Scenarios

Theory: Immersive simulation is a common mode of education for medical students. Observation of clinical simulations prior to participation is believed to be beneficial, though this is often a passive process. Active observation may be more beneficial. Hypotheses: The hypothesis tested in this study was that the active use of a simple checklist during observation of an immersive simulation would result in better participant performance in a subsequent scenario compared with passive observation alone. Methods: Medical students were randomized to either passive or active (with checklist) observation of an immersive simulation involving cardiac arrest prior to participating in their own simulation. Performance measures included time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and time to defibrillation and were compared between first and second scenarios as well as between passive and active observers. Results: Seventy-nine simulations involving 232 students were conducted. Mean time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for those using the checklist and 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = 6 seconds), t(35) = 1.46, p =.153. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for those using the checklist and 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = –2 seconds), t(38) =.21, p =.837. Time to CPR was 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for passive observers and 31 seconds (SD = 21.0; M difference = 7 seconds), t(35) = 1.13, p =.265, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for active observers and 36 seconds (SD = 26.2; M difference = 18 seconds), t(24) = 2.81, p =.010, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for passive observers and 125 seconds (SD = 32.2; M difference = 33 seconds), t(33) = 3.63, p =.001, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for the active observers and 132 seconds (SD = 52.9; M difference = 38 seconds), t(28) =.46, p =.008, for their first scenario counterparts. Conclusions: Observation alone leads to improved performance in the management of a simulated cardiac arrest. The active use of a simple skills-based checklist during observation did not appear to improve performance over passive observation alone.