Inappropriate hospital admission as a risk factor for the subsequent development of adverse events: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

All health overuse implies an unnecessary risk of patients suffering adverse events (AEs). However, this hypothesis has not been corroborated by direct estimates for inappropriate hospital admission (IHA). The objectives of the study were the following: (1) to analyze the association between IHA and the development of subsequent AEs; (2) to explore the distinct clinical and economic implications of AEs subsequent IHA compared to appropriate admissions.

METHODS

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted on hospitalized patients in May 2019 in a high-complexity hospital in Madrid, Spain. The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol was used to measure IHA, and the methodologies of the Harvard Medical Practice Study and the European Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-associated Infections were used to detect and characterize AEs. The association between IHA and the subsequent.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients in the hospital ward were studied. IHA increased the risk of subsequent occurrence of AEs (OR [95% CI]: 3.54 [1.87 to 6.69], versus appropriate) and doubled the mean AEs per patient (coefficient [95% CI]: 0.19 [0.08 to 0.30] increase, versus appropriate) after adjusting for confounders. IHA was a predictive variable of subsequent AEs and the number of AEs per patient. AEs developed after IHA were associated with scheduled admissions (78.9% of AEs, versus 27.9% after appropriate admissions; p < 0.001). Compared with AEs developed after appropriate admissions, AEs after IHA added 2.4 additional days of stay in the intensive care unit and incurred an extra cost of €166,324.9 for the studied sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IHA have a higher risk of subsequent occurrence of AE. Due to the multifactorial nature of AEs, IHA is a possible contributing factor. AEs developed after IHA are associated with scheduled admissions, prolonged ICU stays, and resulted in significant cost overruns.

Inappropriate Hospital Admission According to Patient Intrinsic Risk Factors: an Epidemiological Approach

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate hospital admissions compromise the efficiency of the health care system. This work analyzes, for the first time, the prevalence of inappropriate admission and its association with clinical and epidemiological patient characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence, associated risk factors, and economic impact of inappropriate hospital admissions.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a cross-sectional observational study of all hospitalized patients in a high complexity hospital of over 901 beds capacity in Spain. The prevalence of inappropriate admission and its causes, the association of inappropriateness with patients' intrinsic risk factors (IRFs), and associated financial costs were analyzed with the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol in a multivariate model.

MAIN MEASURES AND KEY RESULTS

A total of 593 patients were analyzed, and a prevalence of inappropriate admissions of 11.9% (95% CI: 9.5 to 14.9) was found. The highest number of IRFs for developing health care-related complications was associated with inappropriateness, which was more common among patients with 1 IRF (OR [95% CI]: 9.68 [3.6 to 26.2.] versus absence of IRFs) and among those with surgical admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.89 [1.1 to 3.3] versus medical admissions). The prognosis of terminal disease reduced the risk (OR [95% CI]: 0.28 [0.1 to 0.9] versus a prognosis of full recovery based on baseline condition). Inappropriate admissions were responsible for 559 days of avoidable hospitalization, equivalent to €17,604.6 daily and €139,076.4 in total, mostly attributable to inappropriate emergency admissions (€96,805.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of inappropriate admissions is similar to the incidence found in previous studies and is a useful indicator in monitoring this kind of overuse. Patients with a moderate number of comorbidities were subject to a higher level of inappropriateness. Inappropriate admission had a substantial and avoidable financial impact.

Adverse events: an expensive and avoidable hospital problem

INTRODUCTION

Adverse healthcare-related events (AE) entail reduced patient safety. Estimating their frequency, characteristics, avoidability and impact is a means to identify targets for improvement in the quality of care.

METHODS

This was a descriptive observational study conducted within the Patient Safety Incident Study in Hospitals in the Community of Madrid (ESHMAD). The study was conducted in a high-complexity hospital in May 2019 through a two-phase electronic medical record review: (1) AE screening and epidemiological and clinical data collection and (2) AE review and classification and analysis of their impact, avoidability, and associated costs.

RESULTS

A total of 636 patients were studied. The prevalence of AE was 12.4%. Death during the stay was associated with the presence of AE (OR [CI95%]: 2.15 [1.07 to 4.52]) versus absence and emergency admission (OR [CI95%]: 17.11[6.63 to 46.26]) versus scheduled. A total of 70.2% of the AEs were avoidable. Avoidable AEs were associated with the presence of pressure ulcers (OR [CI95%]: 2.77 [1.39 to 5.51]), central venous catheter (OR [CI95%]: 2.58 [1.33 to 5.00]) and impaired mobility (OR [CI95%]: 2.24[1.35 to 3.71]), versus absences. They were associated too with the stays in the intensive care unit (OR [CI95%]: 2.75 [1.07 to 7.06]) versus medical service. AEs were responsible for additional costs of €909,716.8 for extra days of stay and €12,461.9 per patient with AE.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of AEs was similar to that found in other studies. AEs led to worse patient outcomes and were associated with the patient's death. Although avoidable AEs were less severe, their higher frequency produced a greater impact on the patient and healthcare system.Key messagesAdverse events are one of the main problems in healthcare delivery and patients who suffer from at least one AE are double as likely to die during hospitalization.Avoidable adverse events are the most frequent in health care and they are a good target where achieve improvement areas that allow getting optimal patient safety and quality of care levels.Patients hospitalized in the ICU, with the previous presence of pressure ulcers, central venous catheter, or impaired mobility were associated with the development of avoidable AE, so optimal management of these patients would reduce the impact of AE.

How Does Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 Affect Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19?

(1) Background: The development of effective COVID-19 vaccines has reduced the impact of COVID-19 on the general population. Our study aims to analyze how vaccination modifies the likelihood of death and length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1927 hospitalized patients infected with COVID-19 was conducted. Information was gathered on vaccination status, hospitalization episode, and clinical profile of the patients. The effect of vaccination on mortality was analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model, and length of stay was analyzed using linear regression. The performance and fit of the models were evaluated; (3) Results: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the risk of dying during admission in vaccinated patients was half that of non-vaccinated (OR: 0.45; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.84). In patients who were discharged due to improvement, the reduction in hospital stay in vaccinated patients was 3.17 days (CI 95%: 5.88 to 0.47); (4) Conclusions: Patients who, despite having been vaccinated, acquire the infection by SARS-CoV-2, have a significant reduction of the risk of death during admission and a reduction of hospital stay compared with unvaccinated patients.

Surgical Error Compensation Claims as a Patient Safety Indicator: Causes and Economic Consequences in the Murcia Health System, 2002 to 2018

OBJECTIVES

Compensation claims are a useful source of information on patient safety research. The purpose of this study was to determine the main causes of surgical compensation claims and their financial impact on the health system.

METHODS

A descriptive observational study with analytical components was carried out on compensation claims brought against the surgical area of the Murcia Health System between 2002 and 2018. We analyzed the frequency, causes, consequences, locations and surgical settings of these claims, the time of judicial procedure, and compensation adjusted to the Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

There were 1172 compensation claims. "orthopedic surgery and traumatology" (27.4%), "gynecology and obstetrics" (25.7%), and "general surgery" (17.2%) were the main surgical settings involved. The most frequent causes were surgical error (42.4%) and treatment error (30.9%). The main sequelae were musculoskeletal (20.0%), neurological (17.7%), and obstetric (17.7%). The average time from incident to resolution of claims was 6.3 years. A total of 20.1% of these claims were successful, particularly those involving retained surgical foreign bodies (71.4% successful claims; P < 0.001). The total compensation paid was €56,338,247 (an average of €17,207 per claim). Compensation was higher in cases with respiratory sequelae (median, 131,600; P = 0.033), death (75,916; P < 0.001), and neurological (60,000; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Compensation claims associated with surgical procedures are made on a variety of grounds. They are drawn-out proceedings, and patients are only successful in 20% of cases.

The Study on Safety in Hospitals in the Region of Madrid (ESHMAD) design: Screening and analysis of incidents and adverse events

BACKGROUND

A Study related to Safety in Hospitals in the Region of Madrid (ESHMAD) was carried out in order to determine the prevalence, magnitude and characteristics of adverse events in public hospitals. This work aims to define a useful methodology for the multicenter study of adverse events in the Region of Madrid, to set out the preliminary results of the hospital enrollment and to establish a model of a strategy of training of trainers for its implementation.

METHODS

ESHMAD was a multicenter, double phase study for the estimation of adverse events and incidents prevalence across the Region of Madrid. First phase comprehended a 1-day cross-sectional prevalence study, in which it was collected, through a screening guide, information about admission, patient characteristics, intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors, and the possibility of an adverse event or incident had happened during the hospitalization. Second phase was a retrospective nested cohort study, in which it was used a Modular Review Form for reviewing the positive screenings of the first phase, identifying in each possible adverse event or incident the classification of the patient safety event, clinical onset, root, and associated causes and factors, impact, and preventability. A pilot study was performed in an Internal Medicine Unit of a tertiary hospital.

RESULTS

34 public hospitals participated, belonging to 6 healthcare categories and with more than 10,000 hospitalisations aggregate capacity. 72 coordinators were enrolled in the strategy of training of trainers, which was performed through five on-site training workshops. In the pilot study, 45.2% patients were identified with at least one positive event of the screening. Of them, 48.1% (25 positive events) were identified as truly AE, with a result of 0.29 EA per analyzed patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESHMAD protocol allows to estimate the prevalence of adverse events, and the strategy of training of trainers facilitated the spread of the research methodology among the participants.

Estimation of the Overuse of Preoperative Chest X-rays According to "Choosing Wisely", "No Hacer", and "Essencial" Initiatives: Are They Equally Applicable and Comparable?

BACKGROUND

Overuse reduces the efficiency of healthcare systems and compromises patient safety. Different institutions have issued recommendations on the indication of preoperative chest X-rays, but the degree of compliance with these recommendations is unknown. This study investigates the frequency and characteristics of the inappropriateness of this practice.

METHODS

This is a descriptive observational study with analytical components, performed in a tertiary hospital in the Community of Madrid (Spain) between July 2018 and June 2019. The inappropriateness of preoperative chest X-ray tests was analyzed according to "Choosing Wisely", "No Hacer" and "Essencial" initiatives and the cost associated with this practice was estimated in Relative Value and Monetary Units.

RESULTS

A total of 3449 preoperative chest X-ray tests were performed during the period of study. In total, 5.4% of them were unjustified according to the "No Hacer" recommendation and 73.3% according to "Choosing Wisely" and "Essencial" criteria, which would be equivalent to 5.6% and 11.8% of the interventions in which this test was unnecessary, respectively. One or more preoperative chest X-ray(s) were indicated in more than 20% of the interventions in which another chest X-ray had already been performed in the previous 3 months. A higher inappropriateness score was also recorded for interventions with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III (16.5%). The Anesthesiology service obtained a lower inappropriateness score than other Petitioning Surgical Services (57.5% according to "Choosing Wisely" and "Essencial"; 4.1% according to "No Hacer"). Inappropriate indication of chest X-rays represents an annual cost of EUR 52,122.69 (170.1 Relative Value Units) according to "No Hacer" and EUR 3895.29 (2276.1 Relative Value Units) according to "Choosing Wisely" or "Essencial" criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

There was wide variability between the recommendations that directly affected the degree of inappropriateness found, with the main reasons for inappropriateness being duplication of preoperative chest X-rays and the lack of consideration of the particularities of thoracic interventions. This inappropriateness implies a significant expense according to the applicable recommendations and therefore a high opportunity cost.

Decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators using a low-temperature-steam-2%-formaldehyde sterilization process during a pandemic: a safe alternative for re-use

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has caused problems with respirator supplies. Re-use may minimize the impact of the shortage, but requires the availability of an efficient and safe decontamination method.

Aim

To determine whether low-temperature-steam–2%-formaldehyde (LTSF) sterilization is effective, preserves the properties of filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators and allows safe re-use.

Methods

Fourteen unused FFP2, FFP3 and N95 respirator models were subjected to two cycles of decontamination cycles. After the second cycle, each model was inspected visually and accumulated residual formaldehyde levels were analysed according to EN 14180. After one and two decontamination cycles, the fit factor (FF) of each model was tested, and penetration tests with sodium chloride aerosols were performed on five models.

Findings

Decontamination physically altered three of the 14 models. All of the residual formaldehyde values were below the permissible threshold. Irregular decreases and increases in FF were observed after each decontamination cycle. In the sodium chloride aerosol penetration test, three models obtained equivalent or superior results to those of the FFP classification with which they were marketed, both at baseline and after one and two cycles of decontamination, and two models had lower filtering capacity.

Conclusion

One and two decontamination cycles using LTSF did not alter the structure of most (11/14) respirators tested, and did not degrade the fit or filtration capacity of any of the analysed respirators. The residual formaldehyde levels complied with EN 14180. This reprocessing method could be used in times of shortage of personal protective equipment.

[Masks as personal protective equipment in the COVID-19 pandemic: How, when and which should be used]

Antecedentes y objetivo

Durante la pandemia COVID-19 se ha producido un aumento de la demanda de mascarillas por parte de profesionales sanitarios y de la población general. En este contexto, se hace necesario sintetizar las características y las indicaciones de uso de los distintos tipos de mascarillas existentes.

Material y métodos

Se consultaron y recopilaron las diferentes recomendaciones difundidas por instituciones de reconocido prestigio, como la Organización Mundial de la Salud, The European Centre for Disease Prevention, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine o el Ministerio de Sanidad del Gobierno de España.

Resultados

Las instituciones consultadas aconsejan reservar las mascarillas filtering face piece (FFP) para el personal sanitario, especialmente en la realización de procedimientos generadores de aerosoles (PGA) (protección mínima de FFP2), y plantean posibles sistemas de reutilización durante épocas de escasez. Asimismo, se recomienda el uso de mascarillas quirúrgicas en profesionales que no realicen PGA y en población sintomática, existiendo variación en las indicaciones de uso para población general sana.

Conclusión

En situaciones de escasez de equipos de protección individual por pandemia de COVID-19 se debe establecer una priorización y racionalización de uso de cada tipo de mascarilla en función del usuario y de la actividad a realizar.