Implementing a Rapid Response System in a tertiary-care hospital. A cost-effectiveness study

Purpose

The occurrence of adverse events (AE) in hospitalized patients substancially increases the risk of disability or death, having a major negative clinical and economic impact on public health. For early identification of patients at risk and to establish preventive measures, different healthcare systems have implemented rapid response systems (RRS). The aim of this study was to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing a RRS in a tertiary-care hospital.

Methods

We included all the patients admitted to Hospital Clínic de Barcelona from 1 to 2016 to 31 December 2016. The cost-effectiveness analysis was summarized as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost divided by the incremental effectiveness of the two alternatives, RRS versus non-RRS). The effectiveness of the RRS, defined as improvements in health outcomes (AE, cardiopulmonary arrest and mortality), was obtained from the literature and applied to the included patient cohort. A budget impact analysis on the implementation of the RRS from a hospital perspective was performed over a 5-year time horizon.

Results

42,409 patients were included, and 448 (1.05%) had severe AE requiring ICU admission. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed an incremental cost (savings) of EUR ??1,471,101 of RRS versus the non-RRS. The budgetary impact showed a cost reduction of EUR 896,762.00 in the first year and EUR 1,588,579.00 from the second to the fifth year.

Conclusions

The present analysis shows the RRS as a dominant, less costly and more effective structure compared to the non-RRS.

     

Readmissions and the quality of care in patients hospitalized with heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines based on the results of randomized clinical trials recommend that patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) at doses shown to reduce mortality and readmission. This study examined the relationship between ACEI use at discharge and readmission among patients with heart failure due to LVSD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were abstracted from the medical records of 2943 randomly selected patients hospitalized for heart failure in 50 hospitals. The outcome of interest was the number of readmissions occurring up to 21 months after discharge. Six-hundred and eleven patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with patients discharged at a recommended ACEI dose, patients not prescribed an ACEI at discharge had an adjusted rate ratio of readmission (RR) of 1.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-2.48], while patients prescribed an ACEI at less than a recommended dose had an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91-1.69) (P = 0.005 for the trend). CONCLUSION: Our results show that ACEI use at discharge in patients with LVSD is associated with decreased rate of readmission. These findings suggest that compliance with the ACEI prescribing recommendations listed in clinical practice guidelines for patients with heart failure due to LVSD confers benefit.     

Impact of economic incentives on quality of professional life and on end-user satisfaction in primary care

BACKGROUND: A new economic incentive scheme based on (i) quality of care objectives for physicians, and (ii) professional development for both physicians and nurses, was introduced in primary care teams. OBJECTIVE: To assess weather the implementation of these economic incentive schemes has had an impact on the quality of professional life (QPL) of both physicians and nurses and on end-user satisfaction. METHODS: Before-after study. Participants are 257 primary care teams in Catalonia, Spain, in the period 2002-2003. QPL and end-user satisfaction were used as outcome measures. RESULTS: QPL was improved in terms of the dimension "perception of support from the management structure" among physicians (4.897 versus 5.220; p<0.001) as well as nurses (5.272 versus 5.638; p<0.001). Further, physicians perceived an increase in the dimension "demands made upon them" (6.124 versus 6.364; p<0.001), differently from the nurses group (5.8191 versus 5.929; p=0.063). Overall, user satisfaction did not vary significantly, although a positive relationship was found between "perception of support from the management structure" and user satisfaction among nurses (beta=0.078, p=0.007), and a negative relationship between "demands made upon them" and user satisfaction in the case of physicians (beta=-0.057, p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Incentives related to quality of care annual targets may increase physicians' perception of burden and it may have a negative impact on consumer satisfaction. Incentives on long-term professional development seem to be related to an increase in professionals' perception of support from the management structure. Among nurses, this increase is related to an improvement of user satisfaction.     

Primary health care product defined by health professionals and users

OBJECTIVE: To identify the components of the primary health care (PHC) product defined by health professionals and users in order to establish indicators for evaluation. METHODS: Qualitative methodology was used with group techniques: a nominal group (health professionals) and focus groups (users). The study was performed in PHC centers in Catalonia (Spain). There were 7 groups: a) family physicians and pediatricians; b) nurses and social workers; c) staff from admissions units and customer services; d) other medical specialists; e) users; f) managers, pharmacists, pharmacologists, and technicians. Participants responded to the question: "Which features should be evaluated in the services that should be provided by PHC?". A content analysis was performed. Textual data were broken down into units and then grouped into categories, following analogy criteria. The interpretative context of the research team was taken into account. RESULTS: Health professionals and users identified 4 dimensions of the PHC product, coinciding with its basic attributes: a) access to services; b) coordination and continuity of the PHC teams with other levels of healthcare; c) relationship between health professionals and users, and d) scientific-technical quality of the PHC teams and the portfolio of services. Equity, satisfaction and efficiency appeared as keystones in all the components of the product identified. CONCLUSION: There was broad agreement in the product definition among health professionals and users. The relationship between health professionals and patients was a key element in all groups. The four dimensions should be included in the evaluation of PHC teams.     

Prioritizing patients on waiting list for cataract surgery: preference differences among citizens

OBJECTIVES: To estimate and compare citizen preferences regarding patient prioritization for cataract surgery. METHOD: A conjoint analysis was performed. Priority criteria were identified and selected using 4 focus/nominal groups consisting of the general public, patients/relatives, allied health-professionals and specialists from Catalonia (n=36). Preferences elicitation (score of criteria): representative sample survey of the above mentioned groups (n=771) and rank-ordered logit model application. Differences were assessed by group analysis and their comparison. RESULTS: The criteria selected and their relative importance were: visual impairment (45%), difficulty in performing activities of daily living (ADL) (15%), limitation of ability to work (14%), being looked after by someone (11%), being a caregiver (8%), and recovery probability (7%). Differences in scores were observed among groups. Visual impairment was scored more highly by the general public and patients/relatives than by other groups (p<0.001). These two groups also assigned less importance to difficulty in performing ADL (p<0.001). The probability of recovery was the least scored criterion by most groups. Correlations among the order of hypothetical patient scenarios were high (r>0.9). However, the final order of patients on the waiting list could differ by up to 27 positions when different group scores were applied. CONCLUSIONS: Social and clinical criteria were considered important. The observed differences among citizens regarding how to prioritize patients on the waiting lists indicates the need to take into account the preferences of all groups of citizens.     

Health technology assessment in Spain

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 established a healthcare system available to everyone and free at the point of service. The General Health Law of 1986 also established the framework for a National Health System (NHS). The Constitution and the law form the regulatory framework for the devolution of healthcare services to the Autonomous Regions. All the 17 Autonomous Regions have complete power regarding public health and planning. However, responsibilities on healthcare financing, organization, provision, and management have devolved to only seven Autonomous Regions. Financial support for health services comes mostly from taxes. Global budgets are a mechanism used by hospitals to control the acquisition of medium and low health technology. Major capital investments for health technology are controlled by the central government in 10 Autonomous Regions (population coverage of 38%) and by the Regional Health Services in the seven remaining Autonomous Regions. In 1995 a regulation for basing the introduction of new procedures and medical equipment on the assessment of safety, efficacy, and efficiency was issued. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a long history in Spain, beginning with the Advisory Board on High Technology in the government of Catalonia in 1984. This board evolved into the Catalan Agency for HTA (CAHTA) in 1994. The Basque Country established a unit for HTA in 1992 (Osteba) and the Andalusian government created an agency in 1996 (AETSA). A national agency for HTA (AETS) was established in 1994. These different programs coordinate their work and together act as an Advisory Committee of the Interregional Council of the NHS.     

Wide social participation in prioritizing patients on waiting lists for joint replacement: a conjoint analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a priority scoring system for patients on waiting lists for joint replacement based on a wide social participation, and to analyze the differences among participants. METHODS: Conjoint analysis. Focus groups in combination with a nominal technique were employed to identify the priority criteria (N=36). A rank-ordered logit model was then applied for scoring estimations. Participants (N=860) represented: consultants, allied-health professionals, patients and their relatives, and the general population of Catalonia. RESULTS: Clinical and social criteria were selected, and their relative importance (over 100 points) was: pain (33), difficulty in doing activities of daily living (21), disease severity (18), limitations on ability to work (10), having someone to look after the patient (9), being a caregiver (6), and recovery probability (4). Estimated criteria coefficients had the expected positive sign and all were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There were differences between groups; pain was rated higher by patients/relatives, and difficulty in doing activities was rated lower by patients/relatives and the general public. Most interaction terms for these criteria and groups were significant (P < 0.001). Consultants and allied-health professionals had the most similar prioritization pattern (r=0.97). CONCLUSION: Both clinical and social criteria are considered for prioritization of joint replacement surgery from a wide social perspective. The preference among professional and social groups varies and this might impact the result of patient prioritization. A wide social participation for obtaining adequate prioritizing systems for patients on waiting lists is desirable.