The Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) is one of the most widely used and evaluated generic health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires. After almost a decade of use in Spain, the present article critically reviews the content and metric properties of the Spanish version, as well as its new developments. A review of indexed articles that used the Spanish version of the SF-36 was performed in Medline (PubMed), the Spanish bibliographic databases IBECS and IME. Articles that provided information on the measurement model, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the instrument were selected. Seventy-nine articles were found, of which 17 evaluated the metric characteristics of the questionnaire. The reliability of the SF-36 scales was higher than the suggested standard (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.7 in 96% of the evaluations. Grouped evaluations obtained by meta-analysis were higher than 0.7 in all cases. The SF-36 showed good discrimination among severity groups, moderate correlations with clinical indicators, and high correlations with other HRQL instruments. Moreover, questionnaire scores predicted mortality and were able to detect improvement due to therapeutic interventions such as coronary angioplasty, benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery, and non-invasive positive pressure home ventilation. The new developments (norm-based scoring, version 2, the SF-12 and SF-8) improved both the metric properties and interpretation of the questionnaire. The Spanish version of the SF-36 and its recently developed versions is a suitable instrument for use in medical research, as well as in clinical practice.

The CURB-65 score (Confusion, Urea >7 mmol·L⁻¹, Respiratory rate ≥30·min⁻¹, low Blood pressure, and age ≥65 yrs) has been proposed as a tool for augmenting clinical judgement for stratifying patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) into different management groups.The six-point CURB-65 score was retrospectively applied in a prospective, consecutive cohort of adult patients with a diagnosis of CAP seen in the emergency department of a 400-bed teaching hospital from March 1, 2000 to February 29, 2004. A total of 1,100 inpatients and 676 outpatients were included.The 30-day mortality rate in the entire cohort increased directly with increasing CURB-65 score: 0, 1.1, 7.6, 21, 41.9 and 60% for CURB-65 scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The score was also significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation and rate of hospital admission in the entire cohort, and with duration of hospital stay among inpatients.The CURB-65 score (Confusion, Urea >7 mmol·L⁻¹, Respiratory rate ≥30·min⁻¹, low Blood pressure, and age ≥65 yrs), and a simpler CRB-65 score that omits the blood urea measurement, helps classify patients with community-acquired pneumonia into different groups according to the mortality risk and significantly correlates with community-acquired pneumonia management key points. The new score can also be used as a severity adjustment measure.

Rationale: Objective strategies are needed to improve the diagnosis of severe community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department setting. Objectives: To develop and validate a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia, comparing it with other prognostic rules. Methods: Data collected from clinical information and physical examination of 1,057 patients visiting the emergency department of a hospital were used to derive a clinical prediction rule, which was then validated in two different populations: 719 patients from the same center and 1,121 patients from four other hospitals. Measurements and Main Results: In the multivariate analyses, eight independent predictive factors were correlated with severe community-acquired pneumonia: arterial pH < 7.30, systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, altered mental status, blood urea nitrogen > 30 mg/dl, oxygen arterial pressure < 54 mm Hg or ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen < 250 mm Hg, age ⩾ 80 yr, and multilobar/bilateral lung affectation. From the β parameter obtained in the multivariate model, a score was assigned to each predictive variable. The model shows an area under the curve of 0.92. This rule proved better at identifying patients evolving toward severe community-acquired pneumonia than either the modified American Thoracic Society rule, the British Thoracic Society's CURB-65, or the Pneumonia Severity Index. Conclusions: A simple score using clinical data available at the time of the emergency department visit provides a practical diagnostic decision aid, and predicts the development of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

Background: We used a validated inpatient satisfaction questionnaire to evaluate the health care received by patients admitted to several hospitals. This questionnaire was factored into distinct domains, creating a score for each to assist in the analysis. We evaluated possible predictors of patient satisfaction in relation to socio-demographic variables, history of admission, and survey logistics. Methods: Cross-sectional study of patients discharged from four acute care general hospitals. Random sample of 650 discharged patients from the medical and surgical wards of each hospital during February and March 2002. A total of 1,910 patients responded to the questionnaire (73.5%). Patient satisfaction was measured by a validated questionnaire with six domains: information, human care, comfort, visiting, intimacy, and cleanliness. Each domain was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of patient satisfaction. Results: In the univariate analysis, age was related to all domains except visiting; gender to comfort, visiting, and intimacy; level of education to comfort and cleanliness; marital status to information, human care, intimacy, and cleanliness; length of hospital stay to visiting and cleanliness, and previous admissions to human care, comfort, and cleanliness. The timing of the response to the mailing and who completed the questionnaire were related to all variables except visiting and cleanliness. Multivariate analysis confirmed in most cases the previous findings and added additional correlations for level of education (visiting and intimacy) and marital status (comfort and visiting). Conclusion: These results confirm the varying importance of some socio-demographic variables and length of stay, previous admission, the timing of response to the questionnaire, and who completed the questionnaire on some aspects of patient satisfaction after hospitalization. All these variables should be considered when evaluating patient satisfaction.