Antigen rapid diagnostic test monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients. RESULTS: From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

Incident reporting reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary Italian hospital: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting (IR) is one of the most used systems to gain knowledge of adverse events (AEs) and to identify sources of risk. During COVID-19 pandemic, several organizational changes have been implemented to respond adequately and effectively to the emergency; this required the suspension of most deferrable activities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate whether IR attitude of health workers has been reduced during the pandemic event. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Azienda Ospedale - Università di Padova (Italy), considering IR of years 2019 and 2020. To standardize the effects of the decrease in admissions, we considered the number of incidents per 1000 admissions. RESULTS: Data shows that during the first (March-May 2020) and second waves (October-December 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic there was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of IR for every 1000 admissions (P = 0.001-Wilcoxon test), especially for AEs and in COVID-19 units. CONCLUSION: This study shows a reduction in IR especially during the first and second pandemic waves of COVID-19 in year 2020. Education and training interventions could be fundamental to raise awareness of the importance of IR in health workers, as this could provide opportunities to understand what is impacting on safety in a particular healthcare context and enable continuous improvement.

Adverse event reporting and patient safety at a University Hospital: Mapping, correlating and associating events for a data-based patient risk management.

BACKGROUND: Reporting adverse events (AE) with a bearing on patient safety is fundamentally important to the identification and mitigation of potential clinical risks. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the AE reporting systems adopted at a university hospital for the purpose of enhancing the learning potential afforded by these systems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study METHODS: Data were collected from different information flows (reports of incidents and falls, patients' claims and complaints, and cases of hospital-acquired infection [HAI]) at an university hospital. A composite risk indicator was developed to combine the data from the different flows. Spearman's nonparametric test was applied to investigate the correlation between the AE rates and a Poisson regression analysis to verify the association among characteristics of the wards and AE rates. SUBJECTS: Sixty-four wards at a University Hospital. RESULTS: There was a marked variability among wards AE rates. Correlations emerged between patients' claims with complaints and the number of incidents reported. Falls were positively associated with average length of hospital stay, number of beds, patients' mean age, and type of ward, and they were negatively associated with the average Cost Weight of the Diagnosis-related group (DRG) of patients on a given ward. Claims and complaints were associated directly with the average DRG weight of a ward's patient admissions. CONCLUSIONS: This study attempted to learn something useful from an analysis of the mandatory (but often little used) data flows generated on adverse events occurring at an university hospital with a view to managing the associated clinical risk to patients.