Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study

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.

What is the relevance of an ambulatory quick diagnosis unit or inpatient admission for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer? A retrospective study of 1004 patients

Quick diagnosis units (QDU) have become an alternative hospital-based ambulatory medicine strategy to inpatient hospitalization for potentially serious illnesses in Spain. Whether diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is better accomplished by an ambulatory or inpatient approach is unknown. The main objective of this retrospective study was to examine and compare the diagnostic effectiveness of a QDU or inpatient setting in patients with pancreatic cancer.Patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had been referred to a university, tertiary hospital-based QDU or hospitalized between 2005 and 2018 were eligible. Presenting symptoms and signs, risk and prognostic factors, and time to diagnosis were compared. The costs incurred during the diagnostic assessment were analyzed with a microcosting method.A total of 1004 patients (508 QDU patients and 496 inpatients) were eligible. Admitted patients were more likely than QDU patients to have weight loss, asthenia, anorexia, abdominal pain, jaundice, and palpable hepatomegaly. Time to diagnosis of inpatients was similar to that of QDU patients (4.1 [0.8 vs 4.3 [0.6] days; P = .163). Inpatients were more likely than QDU patients to have a tumor on the head of the pancreas, a tumor size >2 cm, a more advanced nodal stage, and a poorer histological differentiation. No differences were observed in the proportion of metastatic and locally advanced disease and surgical resections. Microcosting revealed a cost of &OV0556;347.76 (48.69) per QDU patient and &OV0556;634.36 (80.56) per inpatient (P < .001).Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is similarly achieved by an inpatient or QDU clinical approach, but the latter seems to be cost-effective. Because the high costs of hospitalization, an ambulatory diagnostic assessment may be preferable in these patients.

Time to diagnosis and associated costs of an outpatient vs inpatient setting in the diagnosis of lymphoma: a retrospective study of a large cohort of major lymphoma subtypes in Spain

BACKGROUND

Mainly because of the diversity of clinical presentations, diagnostic delays in lymphoma can be excessive. The time spent in primary care before referral to the specialist may be relatively short compared with the interval between hospital appointment and diagnosis. Although studies have examined the diagnostic intervals and referral patterns of patients with lymphoma, the time to diagnosis of outpatient compared to inpatient settings and the costs incurred are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study at two academic hospitals to evaluate the time to diagnosis and associated costs of hospital-based outpatient diagnostic clinics or conventional hospitalization in four representative lymphoma subtypes. The frequency, clinical and prognostic features of each lymphoma subtype and the activities of the two settings were analyzed. The costs incurred during the evaluation were compared by microcosting analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1779 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 with classical Hodgkin, large B-cell, follicular, and mature nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas were identified. Clinically aggressive subtypes including large B-cell and peripheral T-cell lymphomas were more commonly diagnosed in inpatients than in outpatients (39.1 vs 31.2% and 18.9 vs 13.5%, respectively). For each lymphoma subtype, inpatients were older and more likely than outpatients to have systemic symptoms, worse performance status, more advanced Ann Arbor stages, and high-risk prognostic scores. The admission time for diagnosis (i.e. from admission to excisional biopsy) of inpatients was significantly shorter than the time to diagnosis of outpatients (12.3 [3.3] vs 16.2 [2.7] days; P < .001). Microcosting revealed a mean cost of €4039.56 (513.02) per inpatient and of €1408.48 (197.32) per outpatient, or a difference of €2631.08 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Although diagnosis of lymphoma was quicker with hospitalization, the outpatient approach seems to be cost-effective and not detrimental. Despite the considerable savings with the latter approach, there may be hospitalization-associated factors which may not be properly managed in an outpatient unit (e.g. aggressive lymphomas with severe symptoms) and the cost analysis did not account for this potentially added value. While outcomes were not analyzed in this study, the impact on patient outcome of an outpatient vs inpatient diagnostic setting may represent a challenging future research.

Unintentional weight loss: Clinical characteristics and outcomes in a prospective cohort of 2677 patients

BACKGROUND

Whereas there are numerous studies on unintentional weight loss (UWL), these have been limited by small sample sizes, short or variable follow-up, and focus on older patients. Although some case series have revealed that malignancies escaping early detection and uncovered subsequently are exceptional, reported follow-ups have been too short or unspecified and necropsies seldom made. Our objective was to examine the etiologies, characteristics, and long-term outcome of UWL in a large cohort of outpatients.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients referred to an outpatient diagnosis unit for evaluation of UWL as a dominant or isolated feature of disease. Eligible patients underwent a standard baseline evaluation with laboratory tests and chest X-ray. Patients without identifiable causes 6 months after presentation underwent a systematic follow-up lasting for 60 further months. Subjects aged ≥65 years without initially recognizable causes underwent an oral cavity examination, a videofluoroscopy or swallowing study, and a depression and cognitive assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, 2677 patients (mean age, 64.4 [14.7] years; 51% males) were included. Predominant etiologies were digestive organic disorders (nonmalignant in 17% and malignant in 16%). Psychosocial disorders explained 16% of cases. Oral disorders were second to nonhematologic malignancies as cause of UWL in patients aged ≥65 years. Although 375 (14%) patients were initially diagnosed with unexplained UWL, malignancies were detected in only 19 (5%) within the first 28 months after referral. Diagnosis was established at autopsy in 14 cases.

CONCLUSION

This investigation provides new information on the relevance of follow-up in the long-term clinical outcome of patients with unexplained UWL and on the role of age on this entity. Although unexplained UWL seldom constitutes a short-term medical alert, malignancies may be undetectable until death. Therefore, these patients should be followed up regularly (eg yearly visits) for longer than reported periods, and autopsies pursued when facing unsolved deaths.