English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this work is to know the proportion of ina- dequate urgent admissions in a general hospital. Material and methods: A retrospective and descriptive study of patients admitted during 1,999 was performed. The Appropriatness Eva- luation Protocol (AEP) was used in order to evaluate the appropriatness of the admissions. Results: Eighteen admissions (4.5%) were inadecuated. There was a higher proportion of inappropriated admission (IA) when the physician responsible of the admission was a medical specialist (internal medicine, hematology or nephrology): odds ratio 5.3 in opposite to emergency phy - sicians (p<0.03). Conclusions: There was a low proportion of inadequate admissions (4.5%) and the risk of inappropriatness of the admission was major when it was ordered by a medical specialist.

Adecuación de los ingresos hospitalarios urgentes