Categorización de los programas de prevención y rehabilitación cardiaca en España

  1. Pascual García-Hernández
  2. María Ramón Carbonell
  3. Concepción Fernández Redondo
  4. Víctor Fradejas-Sastre
  5. Carmen Naya Leira
  6. Javier Muñiz García
Journal:
Enfermería en cardiología: revista científica e informativa de la Asociación Española de Enfermería en Cardiología

ISSN: 1575-4146

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 81

Pages: 12-20

Type: Article

More publications in: Enfermería en cardiología: revista científica e informativa de la Asociación Española de Enfermería en Cardiología

Abstract

The module of the MAREC Study on Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation Programs (CPRPs) evaluated in three categories, namely Basic, Advanced and Excellent, the CPRPs in Spain according to the standards in Human Resources, Material Resources and Activities as defined by the RECABASIC Project promoted by the Spanish Association of Nursing in Cardiology. A telematically-completed, selfadministered questionnaire was designed, piloted and validated, with 114 specific items, 57 centres answering thereto. The categorization process of the centres was carried out by two independent researchers. The centres were masked throughout the whole process. Four categories were determined, namely, excellent, advanced, basic and not evaluable, the latter being for when the CPRP did not meet any of the basic standards. Full agreement was obtained between the two evaluators in 41 of the 57 centres (72%) in the first evaluation. In the 16 (28%) CPRPs with initial disagreement, there was a joint discussion between the evaluators, who reached a justified agreement. Data were analyzed with the aid of the statistical package STATA 12; for the description of qualitative variables, proportions were used. Out of the 57 CPRPs evaluated, 47.37% (n=27) were categorized as Non-Evaluable and 52.63% (n=30) as Evaluable. Out of the latter, 70% (n=21) were Basic, 20% (n=6) Advanced and 10% (n=3) Excellent. The deficiencies of each CPRP were identified by standard and justified to promote its correction and obtain excellence in care. As conclusions, the high percentage of Non-Evaluable CPRPs, due to incomplete or inconsistent answers, and the low proportion of Excellent and Advanced CPRPs detected stood out. Likewise, the deficiencies detected are rectifiable, with the categorization of Excellent possibly reaching 56.66% (n=17) of the CPRPs evaluated.