4.1 Editorial Material

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Spanish Nephrology Services

期刊

NEFROLOGIA
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 579-584

出版社

SOC ESPANOLA NEFROLOGIA DR RAFAEL MATESANZ
DOI: 10.1016/j.nefro.2020.08.002

关键词

COVID-19; Dialysis; Kidney transplant; Clinical Nephrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, has required a rapid and drastic transformation of hospitals, and consequently also of Spanish Nephrology Units, to respond to the critical situation. The Spanish Society of Nephrology conducted a survey directed to the Heads of Nephrology Departments in Spain that addressed the reorganisation of Nephrology departments and activity during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic. The survey has been focused on the integration of nephrologists in COVID-19 teams, nephrology inpatient care activities (elective admissions, kidney biopsies), the performance of elective surgeries such as vascular accesses or implantation of peritoneal catheters, the suspension of kidney transplantation programmes and the transformation of nephrology outpatient clinics. This work details the adaptation and transformation of nephrology services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. During this period, elective admissions to Nephrology Services, elective surgeries and biopsies were suspended, and the kidney transplant programme was scaled back by more than 75%. It is worth noting that outpatient nephrology consultations were carried out largely by telephone. In conclusion, the pandemic has clearly impacted clinical activity in Spanish Nephrology departments, reducing elective activity and kidney transplants, and modifying activity in outpatient clinics. A restructuring and implementation plan in Nephrology focused on telemedicine and/or virtual medicine would seem to be both necessary and very useful in the near future. (C) 2020 Sociedad Espanola de Nefrologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据