Quick outpatient diagnosis in small district or general tertiary hospitals: A comparative observational study

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Community Diagnostic Centres: A Rapid Review

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of community diagnostic centres as a potential solution to increasing capacity and reducing pressure on secondary care in the UK. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant primary studies was conducted in a range of electronic sources in August 2022. Screening and critical appraisal were undertaken by two independent reviewers. There were no geographical restrictions or limits to year of publication. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data and present findings. Results: Twenty primary studies evaluating twelve individual diagnostic centres were included. Most studies were specific to cancer diagnosis and evaluated diagnostic centres located within hospitals. The evidence of effectiveness appeared mixed. There is evidence to suggest diagnostic centres can reduce various waiting times and reduce pressure on secondary care. However, cost-effectiveness may depend on whether the diagnostic centre is running at full capacity. Most included studies used weak methodologies that may be inadequate to infer effectiveness. Conclusion: Further well-designed, quality research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community diagnostic centres.

A comparative cost analysis between two quick diagnosis units of different levels of complexity

Aim: To compare by micro-costing the costs incurred by quick diagnosis units of tertiary and second-level hospitals. Patients & methods: We included 407 patients from a tertiary and secondary hospital unit. A bottom-up approach was applied. Results: Cost per patient was €577.5 ± 219.6 in the tertiary versus €394.7 ± 92.58 in the secondary unit (p = 0.0559). Mean number of visits and ratio of successive/first visits were significantly higher in the former (3.098 and 2.07 vs 2.123 and 1.12, respectively). Personnel and indirect costs including their percent contribution to overall costs accounted for the main differences. Conclusion: A greater volume of appointments, number of staff and staff time and a greater complexity of patients from the tertiary hospital unit justified the differences in cost outcomes.

Trends in Hospitalization of Patients with Potentially Serious Diseases Evaluated at a Quick Diagnosis Clinic

Although quick diagnosis units (QDU) have become a cost-effective alternative to inpatient admission for diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, the rate of return hospitalizations among evaluated patients is unknown. This study examined the temporal trends in admissions of QDU patients through 15 years. Adult patients referred to QDU from 2004 to 2019 who were hospitalized between the first and last visit in the unit were eligible. Decisions about admissions were mainly based on the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol and required independent validation by experienced clinicians using a customized tool. The final analysis included 825 patients. Patient characteristics and major reasons for admission were compared each year and linear trends were analyzed. Admission rates decreased from 7.2% in 2004–2005 to 4.3% in 2018–2019 (p < 0.0001). While a significant increasing trend was observed in the rate of admissions due to cancer-related complications (from 39.5% in 2004–2005 to 61.7% in 2018–2019; p < 0.0001), those due to anemia-related complications and scheduled invasive procedures experienced a significant downward trend. A likely explanation for these declining trends was the relocation of the unit to a new daycare center in 2013–2014 with recovery rooms and armchairs for IV treatments. The facts of this study could help in the provision of anticipatory guidance for the optimal management of patients at risk of clinical complications.

Quick diagnosis units: predictors of time to diagnosis and costs

Financial crisis has forced health systems to seek alternatives to hospitalization-based healthcare. Quick diagnosis units (QDUs) are cost-effective compared to hospitalization, but the determinants of QDU costs have not been studied.We aimed at assessing the predictors of costs of a district hospital QDU (Hospital Plató, Barcelona) between 2009 and 2016.This study was a retrospective longitudinal single center study of 404 consecutive outpatients referred to the QDU of Hospital Plató. The referral reason was dichotomized into suggestive of malignancy vs other. The final diagnosis was dichotomized into organic vs nonorganic and malignancy vs nonmalignancy. All individual resource costs were obtained from the finance department to conduct a micro-costing analysis of the study period.Mean age was 62 ± 20 years (women = 56%), and median time-to-diagnosis, 12 days. Total and partial costs were greater in cases with final diagnosis of organic vs nonorganic disorder, as it was in those with symptoms suggestive or a final diagnosis of cancer vs noncancer. Of all subcosts, imaging showed the stronger correlation with total cost. Time-to-diagnosis and imaging costs were significant predictors of total cost above the median in binary logistic regression, with imaging costs also being a significant predictor in multiple linear regression (with total cost as quantitative outcome).Predictors of QDU costs are partly nonmodifiable (i.e., cancer suspicion, actually one of the goals of QDUs). Yet, improved primary-care-to-hospital referral circuits reducing time to diagnosis as well as optimized imaging protocols might further increase the QDU cost-effectiveness process. Prospective studies (ideally with direct comparison to conventional hospitalization costs) are needed to explore this possibility.