Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2016
National Registry of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Mexico II (RENAPREC II).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ilarraza-Lomelí Hermes, García-Saldivia Marianna, Rojano-Castillo Jessica, Justiniano Samuel, Cerón Norma, Aranda-Ayala Zulema-L, Rodríguez Azucena, Hernández Alejandro, Cassaigne María-Elena, Cantero Raúl, Gasca Pablo, Hinojosa Tania, Alonso Jesús, Romo Ricardo, Lara Jorge, Pimentel Elizabeth, Zavala Juana, Rius-Suárez María-Dolores, Cherebetiu Gabriel, Cortés Othniel, Almaraz Alejandro, Mendoza Pedro, Silva Jesús, Tirado Enrique, Martínez Leonel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to compare the state of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs (CRP) in 2009 with 2015. Focus is directed on health care, training of health-providers, research, and the barriers to their implementation.
METHODS: All authors of RENAPREC-2009, and other cardiac rehabilitation leaders in Mexico were requested to participate. These centres were distributed into two groups: RENAPREC-2009 centres that participated in 2015, and the new CRP units.
RESULTS: In 2009 there were 14 centres, two of which disappeared and another two did not respond. CRP-units increased by 71% (n=24), and their geographic distribution shows a centripetal pattern. The coverage of CRP-units was 0.02 centres per 100,000 inhabitants. Only 4.4% of eligible patients were referred to CRP, with a rate of 10.4 patients/100,000 inhabitants in 2015. The ratio of Clinical Cardiologists to Cardiac Rehabilitation Specialists was 94:1, and the ratio of Intervention Specialists to cardiac rehabilitation experts was 16:1. Cardiac rehabilitation activities and costs varied widely. Patient dropout rate in phase II was 12%. Several barriers were identified: financial crisis (83%), lack of skilled personnel (67%), deficient equipment (46%), inadequate areas (42%), and a reduced number of operating centres (38%).
CONCLUSIONS: CRPs in Mexico are still in the process of maturing. Mexican CRP-centres have several strengths, like the quality of the education of the professionals and the multidisciplinary programs. However, the lack of referral of patients and the heterogeneity of procedures are still their main weaknesses.
METHODS: All authors of RENAPREC-2009, and other cardiac rehabilitation leaders in Mexico were requested to participate. These centres were distributed into two groups: RENAPREC-2009 centres that participated in 2015, and the new CRP units.
RESULTS: In 2009 there were 14 centres, two of which disappeared and another two did not respond. CRP-units increased by 71% (n=24), and their geographic distribution shows a centripetal pattern. The coverage of CRP-units was 0.02 centres per 100,000 inhabitants. Only 4.4% of eligible patients were referred to CRP, with a rate of 10.4 patients/100,000 inhabitants in 2015. The ratio of Clinical Cardiologists to Cardiac Rehabilitation Specialists was 94:1, and the ratio of Intervention Specialists to cardiac rehabilitation experts was 16:1. Cardiac rehabilitation activities and costs varied widely. Patient dropout rate in phase II was 12%. Several barriers were identified: financial crisis (83%), lack of skilled personnel (67%), deficient equipment (46%), inadequate areas (42%), and a reduced number of operating centres (38%).
CONCLUSIONS: CRPs in Mexico are still in the process of maturing. Mexican CRP-centres have several strengths, like the quality of the education of the professionals and the multidisciplinary programs. However, the lack of referral of patients and the heterogeneity of procedures are still their main weaknesses.