[Proposing a workload indicator for hospital at home patients in Osakidetza - Basque Public Health Service]. / Propuesta de un indicador de cargas de trabajo en la atención de pacientes en hospitalización a domicilio de Osakidetza ­ Servicio Vasco de Salud.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Hospital at Home (HaH) setting currently lacks adequate workload indicators. This study suggests an indicator that can help in improving professional resources allocation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective data was collected during May 2021 from patients treated in nine HaH units of Osakidetza-Basque Health Service (North of Spain). Direct care and travel times of healthcare staff was recorded. Data on inpatient days, number of visits, sociodemographic variables, health status, and patient pathologies, among others, were collected. The proposed indicator encompasses both the average visit time and the visit rates. It is called intensity and represents the average daily workload time per patient. RESULTS: A total of n = 1,171 users were included in the analyses. Their mean age was 69.8 years, 45.5% were women and 25% lived more than 12 km away from the corresponding HaH unit. Workload variations were observed for nursing-only and medical-nursing teams, depending on the type of day and patient classification group. The average nursing-only teams workload time on working days was 10.82 min and on non-working days it was 14.78 min. The average workload time for medical-nursing teams, during the same days, was 20.40 min and 4.59 min, respectively. It was observed that certain patient types, like those in palliative care, represented a high workload for medical-nursing teams on working days. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity indicator can help answering the question of how many patients can be assigned to a professional. It can also be used to adjust the staffing needs of the HaH units.

Patient acceptable symptom state and OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria in joint replacement. Identification of cut-off values.

OBJECTIVE: To identify new cut-off values beyond which patients can be considered as satisfied or as responders through patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) set of responder criteria in total joint replacement. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a 1-year prospective multicenter study of 861 patients, 510 with total knee replacement (TKR) and 351 with total hip prosthesis (THR). Pain and function data were collected by the reverse scoring option of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). PASS values were identified with the 25th centile estimation using an anchoring question about satisfaction with actual symptoms. OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria was based on a combination of absolute and relative change of pain, function and global patient's assessment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used as a complementary approach. RESULTS: The values for PASS were about 80 and 69 for pain and function in THR, while these values were 80 and 68 when using OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Regarding TKR, PASS values were about 75 and 67 in pain and function with both criteria. ROC values were slightly lower in all cases. PASS and OMERACT-OARSI values varied moderately across tertiles of baseline severity. CONCLUSION: With the provided data we can establish when a patient can be considered as satisfied/responder in joint replacement. The scores achieved at 1 year were very similar according to both criteria.

Vision screening in children by Plusoptix Vision Screener compared with gold-standard orthoptic assessment.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate a new autorefractor, the Plusoptix Vision Screener (PVS), as a screening tool to detect risk factors for amblyopia by comparing it with gold-standard orthoptic vision screening in children. METHODS: Community-based screening study including 288 children age 4-7 years who were screened with the PVS and by orthoptic assessment (distance acuity, cover test, extraocular movements, 20 PD prism test, Lang stereotest). Follow-up comprehensive eye examination of screening-positive children included manual cycloplegic retinoscopy. RESULTS: Testability was high for both methods. Orthoptic screening identified 36 children with reduced vision and/or factors associated with amblyopia (referral rate 12.5%). The PVS identified 16 children with potential vision problems (referral rate 5.6%), indicating only moderate sensitivity (44%; 95% CI 27.9 to 61.9%), but high specificity (100%; 95% CI 98.5 to 100%) to detect factors associated with amblyopia. The PVS underestimated visually significant refractive errors. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the PVS as single screening test in young children may miss a significant number of children with amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors.