Carlos Luaces Cubells

Publications (2)1.83 Total impact

• Article: Family presence during invasive procedures at the emergency department: what is the opinion of Spanish medical staff?

  Patricia Corniero, Anna Gamell, Cristina Parra Cotanda, Victoria Trenchs, Carlos Luaces Cubells
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Family presence (FP) during invasive procedures (IPs) in children remains controversial among pediatric emergency department (PED) staff. The authors aimed to determine health care providers' attitudes toward FP during IPs in Spain, to learn whether parents are given the option of being present during different IPs, and to study which factors influence the providers' opinions. Observational study. Physicians and nurses were asked to answer a questionnaire, which was sent to 43 PEDs and was available at the Spanish Pediatric Emergency Society Web site. We obtained 222 questionnaires from 36 Spanish hospitals. A total of 65.8% of the surveys were answered by physicians (66.4% pediatricians) and 34.2% by nurses. The median age of the respondents was 32 years, and 69.2% were women. Parents were given the option of being present during blood sampling (36.4%), intravenous line placement (32.7%), urethral catheterization (32.1%), lumbar puncture (13.5%), and resuscitation (1%). More than 60% of providers approved of FP during blood sampling, sutures, intravenous line placement, and urethral catheterization; however, only 10.8% of providers encourages FP during resuscitation. Against FP, health care staff argue procedural invasiveness (75.6%), parents' anxiety (87.6%), and worsened performance of the procedure (66%). Commonly expressed advantages were reducing patient distress (72.9%) and parent anxiety (62.3%). Physicians, especially the older ones, are more likely to encourage FP than nurses for some IPs. The PED staff tend to prefer parents not to be present during IPs as the level of invasiveness increases. Family presence is not common in Spanish PEDs. Older physicians are more likely to support FP than nurses.
  Pediatric emergency care 02/2011; 27(2):86-91. · 0.92 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: José M Quintillá

  Article: Prospective validation of two systems of classification for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

  Alexandre Escribá, Anna Maria Gamell, Yolanda Fernández, Jose María Quintillá, Carlos Luaces Cubells
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The objectives of this study were (1) to validate the Alvarado score and pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) in a prospectively identified pediatric cohort and (2) to assess abdominal ultrasonography (AUS) as a tool to increase the diagnostic reliability of both scores. Prospective study conducted from January 10, 2008, to January 1, 2009. All patients attended at the emergency department with suspected acute appendicitis (AA) who had a blood sample collected were included. Items from both scores were recorded. The performance of an AUS, the decision to admit the patient, and the therapeutics were decided by the physician, disregarding the scores values. Nonadmitted patients were contacted by telephone. Ninety-nine patients were included. Mean age was 11 years, and 62.6% were males. Appendectomy was performed in 44.4% patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the Alvarado score was 0.96 and that for PAS was 0.97. Not a single patient with an Alvarado score less than 5 or PAS less than 4 had AA. All patients with an Alvarado score greater than 8 or PAS greater than 7 had AA. For both scores, the optimum cutoff point was 6 (sensibility of 90.4% and specificity of 91.2% for the Alvarado score and sensibility of 88.1% and specificity of 98.2% for PAS). Abdominal ultrasonography was performed on 31 patients (sensibility of 84.6% and specificity of 94.4%). We studied the value of scores and AUS together. Assuming an Alvarado score from 1 to 4 and PAS from 1 to 3 as no AA, an Alvarado score from 9 to 10 and PAS from 8 to 9 as AA, and proceeding according to the AUS for intermediate values, a sensibility of 93.3% and 97.2% and a specificity of 100% and 97.6%, respectively, were obtained. Both scores are a useful tool in the evaluation of children with possible AA. For extreme values of scores, the results really ensure their use in the emergency department. The AUS can help on decision making for intermediate values.
  Pediatric emergency care 02/2011; 27(3):165-9. · 0.92 Impact Factor