RESUMO
International hospitals and healthcare facilities are facing catastrophic financial challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Hospital Association estimates a financial impact of $202.6 billion in lost revenue for America's hospitals and healthcare systems, or an average of $50.7 billion per month. Furthermore, it could cost low- and middle-income countries ~ US$52 billion (equivalent to US$8.60 per person) each four weeks to provide an effective healthcare response to COVID-19. In the setting of the largest daily COVID-19 new cases in the US, this burden will influence patient care, surgeries, and surgical outcomes. From a global economic standpoint, The World Bank projects that global growth is projected to shrink by almost 8% with poorer countries feeling most of the impact, and the United Nations projects that it will cost the global economy around 2 trillion dollars this year. Overall, a lack of preparedness was a major contributor to the struggles experienced by healthcare facilities around the world. Items such as personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, hospital equipment, sanitizing supplies, toilet paper, and water were in short supply. These deficiencies were exposed by COVID-19 and have prompted healthcare organizations around the world to invent new essential plans for pandemic preparedness. In this paper, we will discuss the economic impact of COVID-19 on US and international hospitals, healthcare facilities, surgery, and surgical outcomes. In the future, the US and countries around the world will benefit from preparing a plan of action to use as a guide in the event of a disaster or pandemic.
Assuntos
COVID-19/economia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Atenção à Saúde/economia , Saúde Global/economia , COVID-19/terapia , Atenção à Saúde/tendências , Saúde Global/tendências , Pessoal de Saúde/economia , Pessoal de Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Pandemias , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/tendências , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease identified in 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic changed neurosurgery protocols to provide ongoing care for patients while ensuring the safety of health care workers. In Brazil, the rapid spread of the disease led to new challenges in the health system. Neurooncology practice was one of the most affected by the pandemic due to restricted elective procedures and new triage protocols. We aim to characterize the impact of the pandemic on neurosurgery in Brazil. METHODS: We analyzed 112 different types of neurosurgical procedures, with special detail in 11 neurooncology procedures, listed in the Brazilian Hospital Information System records in the DATASUS database between February and July 2019 and the same period in 2020. Linear regression and paired t-test analyses were performed and considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There was an overall decrease of 21.5% (28,858 cases) in all neurosurgical procedures, impacting patients needing elective procedures (-42.46%) more than emergency surgery (-5.93%). Neurooncology procedures decreased by 14.89%. Nonetheless, the mortality rate during hospitalization increased by 21.26%. Linear regression analysis in hospitalizations (Slope = 0.9912 ± 0.07431; CI [95%] = 0.8231-1.159) and total cost (Slope = 1.03 ± 0.03501; CI [95%] = 0.9511-1.109) in the 11 different types of neurooncology procedures showed a P < 0.0001. The mean cost per type of procedure showed an 11.59% increase (P = 0.0172) between 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased mortality, decreased hospitalizations, and therefore decreased overall costs, despite increased costs per procedure for a variety of neurosurgical procedures. Our study serves as a stark example of the effect of the pandemic on neurosurgical care in settings of limited resources and access to care.
Assuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , Atenção à Saúde/tendências , Países em Desenvolvimento , Sistemas de Informação Hospitalar/tendências , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/tendências , Brasil/epidemiologia , COVID-19/economia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Atenção à Saúde/economia , Países em Desenvolvimento/economia , Pessoal de Saúde/economia , Pessoal de Saúde/tendências , Sistemas de Informação Hospitalar/economia , Humanos , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/economia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/tendênciasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a public health emergency and raised global concerns in about 213 countries without vaccines and with limited medical capacity to treat the disease. The COVID-19 has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions, and there is little information about the money value of treatments. The present study aimed to summarize economic evaluation evidence of preventing strategies, programs, and treatments of COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specialized databases of economic evaluation from December 2019 to July 2020 to identify relevant literature to economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from full-text articles, and did their quality assessment by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Then, quality synthesis of results was done. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies of economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The CHEERS scores for most studies (n = 9) were 85 or higher (excellent quality). Eight studies scored 70 to 85 (good quality), eight studies scored 55 to 70 (average quality), and one study < %55 (poor quality). The decision-analytic modeling was applied to twenty-three studies (88%) to evaluate their services. Most studies utilized the SIR model for outcomes. In studies with long-time horizons, social distancing was more cost-effective than quarantine, non-intervention, and herd immunity. Personal protective equipment was more cost-effective in the short-term than non-intervention. Screening tests were cost-effective in all studies. CONCLUSION: The results suggested screening tests and social distancing to be cost-effective alternatives in preventing and controlling COVID-19 on a long-time horizon. However, evidence is still insufficient and too heterogeneous to allow any definite conclusions regarding costs of interventions. Further research as are required in the future.
Assuntos
COVID-19/economia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Análise Custo-Benefício , Saúde Global/economia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Teste para COVID-19/economia , Humanos , Pandemias/economia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Distanciamento FísicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Robust personal protective equipment is essential in preventing the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 to head and neck surgeons who are routinely involved in aerosol generating procedures. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the collective experience, across 3 institutes, of using a reusable half-face respirator in 72 head and neck surgery cases. METHOD: Cost analysis was performed to demonstrate the financial implications of using a reusable respirator compared to single-use filtering facepiece code 3 masks. CONCLUSION: The reusable respirator is a cost-effective alternative to disposable filtering facepiece code 3 respirators. Supplying reusable respirators to individual staff members may increase the likelihood of them having appropriate personal protective equipment during their clinical duties.
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Reutilização de Equipamento/economia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Aerossóis , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Líquidos Corporais/virologia , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Análise Custo-Benefício/métodos , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Exposição Ocupacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Otolaringologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Otorrinolaringológicos/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Otorrinolaringológicos/normas , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , SARS-CoV-2 , Cirurgiões/estatística & dados numéricos , Ventiladores Mecânicos/efeitos adversos , Ventiladores Mecânicos/virologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) of supracondylar humeral fractures is one of the most common procedures performed in pediatric orthopaedics. The use of full, standard preparation and draping with standard personal protective equipment (PPE) may not be necessary during this procedure. This is of particular interest in the current climate as we face unprecedented PPE shortages due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 1,270 patients treated with CRPP of a supracondylar humeral fracture at 2 metropolitan pediatric centers by 10 fellowship-trained pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. One surgeon in the group did not wear a mask when performing CRPP of supracondylar humeral fractures, and multiple surgeons in the group utilized a semisterile preparation technique (no sterile gown or drapes). Infectious outcomes were compared between 2 groups: full sterile preparation and semisterile preparation. We additionally analyzed a subgroup of patients who had semisterile preparation without surgeon mask use. Hospital cost data were used to estimate annual cost savings with the adoption of the semisterile technique. RESULTS: In this study, 1,270 patients who underwent CRPP of a supracondylar humeral fracture and met inclusion criteria were identified. There were 3 deep infections (0.24%). These infections all occurred in the group using full sterile preparation and surgical masks. No clinically relevant pin-track infections were noted. There were no known surgeon occupational exposures to bodily fluid. It is estimated that national adoption of this technique in the United States could save between 18,612 and 22,162 gowns and masks with costs savings of $3.7 million to $4.4 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: We currently face critical shortages of PPE due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from this large series suggest that a semisterile technique during CRPP of supracondylar humeral fractures is a safe practice. We anticipate that this could preserve approximately 20,000 gowns and masks in the United States over the next year. Physicians are encouraged to reevaluate their daily practice to identify safe opportunities for resource preservation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Fixação de Fratura/normas , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Fraturas do Úmero/cirurgia , Pandemias , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/prevenção & controle , Betacoronavirus , Pinos Ortopédicos , COVID-19 , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Redução Fechada/efeitos adversos , Redução Fechada/normas , Feminino , Fixação de Fratura/efeitos adversos , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/economia , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/métodos , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/economia , Controle de Infecções/normas , Masculino , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/etiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). STUDY DESIGN: We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. RESULTS: In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. KEY POINTS: · Universal screening is the preferred strategy for labor.. · With high prevalence, universal PPE is cost-effective.. · For planned cesarean, universal PPE is cost saving..
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Controle de Infecções/organização & administração , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Saúde Ocupacional , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/estatística & dados numéricos , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , COVID-19 , Teste para COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecções por Coronavirus/economia , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Feminino , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/estatística & dados numéricos , Trabalho de Parto , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Pandemias/economia , Pandemias/estatística & dados numéricos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Pneumonia Viral/economia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Gravidez , Estados UnidosAssuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/métodos , Recursos em Saúde , Saúde Ocupacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/estatística & dados numéricos , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/prevenção & controle , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Feminino , Pessoal de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias/estatística & dados numéricos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Construction workers are at a high risk of exposure to various types of hazardous substances such as crystalline silica. Though multiple studies indicate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of different silica exposure reduction interventions in the construction sector, the decisions for selecting a specific silica exposure reduction intervention are best informed by an economic evaluation. Economic evaluation of interventions is subjected to uncertainties in practice, mostly due to the lack of precise data on important variables. In this study, we aim to identify the most cost-beneficial silica exposure reduction intervention for the construction sector under uncertain situations. METHODS: We apply a probabilistic modeling approach that covers a large number of variables relevant to the cost of lung cancer, as well as the costs of silica exposure reduction interventions. To estimate the societal lifetime cost of lung cancer, we use an incidence cost approach. To estimate the net benefit of each intervention, we compare the expected cost of lung cancer cases averted, with expected cost of implementation of the intervention in one calendar year. Sensitivity analysis is used to quantify how different variables affect interventions net benefit. RESULTS: A positive net benefit is expected for all considered interventions. The highest number of lung cancer cases are averted by combined use of wet method, local exhaust ventilation and personal protective equipment, about 107 cases, with expected net benefit of $45.9 million. Results also suggest that the level of exposure is an important determinant for the selection of the most cost-beneficial intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insights for decision makers about silica exposure reduction interventions in the construction sector. It also provides an overview of the potential advantages of using probabilistic modeling approach to undertake economic evaluations, particularly when researchers are confronted with a large number of uncertain variables.
Assuntos
Indústria da Construção , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Saúde Ocupacional/economia , Dióxido de Silício/efeitos adversos , Análise Custo-Benefício/métodos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiologia , Exposição Ocupacional/efeitos adversos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Probabilidade , Ventilação/economiaRESUMO
Background: Although the increased occupational exposures among career firefighters are well documented, there are gaps in research related to exposures among volunteer firefighters. This study was completed in a state where the majority of firefighters are volunteers. We aimed to examine if differences existed in career versus volunteer firefighters' behaviors related to the retirement, cleaning, and storage of turnout gear which may increase occupational exposures. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample of 300 firefighters during a training event for both volunteer and career firefighters from one fire district in Kentucky. We measured factors that may affect behaviors related to retirement, cleaning, and storage of turnout gear, such as age of turnout gear at retirement, frequency of cleaning, and location of storage. Results: Two hundred and seventy-five firefighters out of 300 invited participants completed the survey, for a response rate of 92%. The majority of the participants were compliant with National Fire Protection Association Standards with most reporting cleaning their gear as needed, storing gear at the fire station, and retiring gear within 10 years of the manufactured date. Most of the participants (88%) were concerned about job-related exposures and felt susceptible to diseases like cancer and respiratory illness. The structural issues of cost and accessibility were identified as the primary barriers to the proper retirement and cleaning of turnout gear, especially among volunteer firefighters. Conclusions/Application to Practice: Most participants retired, cleaned, and stored turnout as recommended. The majority of participants were concerned with job-related exposures. The structural issues of cost and accessibility were identified as the primary barriers to the proper retirement and cleaning of turnout gear, especially among volunteer firefighters. By identifying differences, tailored trainings could be aimed at volunteer firefighters to help reduce their exposures.
Assuntos
Descontaminação/estatística & dados numéricos , Bombeiros , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/normas , Adulto , Idoso , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Kentucky , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , População Rural , Inquéritos e Questionários , VoluntáriosRESUMO
O custo dos materiais faz parte do cálculo do valor dos honorários odontológicos. As resinas compostas são materiais usualmente utilizados em restaurações dentárias diretas de dentes posteriores. O objetivo desse trabalho foi determinar e analisar o valor total do custo dos materiais de biossegurança utilizados em restaurações dentárias diretas em resina composta. O cálculo dos custos foi baseado no método de sistema de custeio variável. A lista dos materiais foi obtida por meio de consulta a uma banca juízes e baseada nos padrões de excelência comprovados na literatura para atendimento em equipe. Os valores dos materiais foram obtidos de uma média dos valores consultados no mercado fornecedor. O custo encontrado para a biossegurança foi de R$.8,85. Desse valor, os equipamentos de proteção individual (EPI) descartáveis para a equipe e paciente representaram 56,72%. Os valores encontrados podem ser utilizados no cálculo do valor final do procedimento restaurador, auxiliando na gestão de serviços odontológicos públicos ou privados...
The cost of the materials is part of the calculation of the value of dental fees. The composite resins are materials commonly used in direct posterior dental restorations. The aim of this study was to determine and to assess the total value of the cost of the biosafety materials used in composite resin posterior dental restorations. The calculation of costs was based on the method of variable costing system. A list of the materials was obtained by a panel of experts and based on the excellence standards established in the literature for dental team care. The values of the materials were obtained from an average of the values founded in the supplier market. The founded cost was R$.8.85 (in Brazilian current coin) for biosafety materials. Of this value, the personal protective equipment (PPE) disposable products for the team and patient accounted for 56.72 %. These values might be used in the calculation of the final value of the restorative procedure, aiding in the management of public or private dental care services...