Multiple criteria decision analysis approach to consider therapeutic innovations in the emergency department: The methoxyflurane organizational impact in acute trauma pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute trauma pain is poorly managed in the emergency department (ED). The reasons are partly organizational: ED crowding and rare trauma care pathways contribute to oligoanalgesia. Anticipating the organizational impact of an innovative care procedure might facilitate the decision-making process and help to optimize pain management. METHODS: We used a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to consider the organizational impact of methoxyflurane (self-administered) in the ED, introduced alone or supported by a trauma care pathway. A MCDA experiment was designed for this specific context, 8 experts in emergency trauma care pathways (leading physicians and pharmacists working in French urban tertiary hospitals) were recruited. The study involved four steps: (i) Selection of organizational criteria for evaluating the innovation's impact; (ii) assessment of the relative weight of each criterion; (iii) choice of appropriate scenarios for exploring the organizational impact of MEOX under various contexts; and (iv) software-assisted simulation based on pairwise comparisons of the scenarios. The final outcome measure was the expected overall organizational impact of methoxyflurane on a 0-to-100 scale (score >50: positive impact). RESULTS: Nine organizational criteria were selected. "Mean length of stay in the ED" was the most weighted. Methoxyflurane alone obtained 59 as a total score, with a putative positive impact for eight criteria, and a neutral effect on one. When a trauma care pathway was introduced concomitantly, the impact of methoxyflurane was greater overall (score: 75) and for each individual criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Our model highlighted the putative positive organizational impact of methoxyflurane in the ED-particularly when supported by a trauma care pathway-and the relevance of expert consensus in this particular pharmacoeconomic context. The MCDA approach could be extended to other research fields and healthcare challenges in emergency medicine.

Dedicated call center (SOS-HAE) for hereditary angioedema attacks: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of guidelines for the specific treatment of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, HAE morbidity and mortality rates remain substantial. HAE attacks are a major medical issue requiring specific treatment as well as a considerable socio-economic burden. We report a protocol designed to test whether a dedicated call centre is more effective than usual practice in the management of patients experiencing an HAE attack. METHODS/DESIGN: This prospective, cluster-randomised, single-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trial evaluates the morbidity and consequent socio-economic costs of the management of patients experiencing an HAE attack by a dedicated call centre as compared to usual practice. The trial aims to recruit 200 patients. Patients in the intervention arm are provided with an SOS-HAE card with the call centre's freephone number that they can access in the case of an attack. The centre's mission is to provide recommended expert advice on early home treatment. The centre can route the call to a local emergency medical service with competency in HAE management or even arrange for the drugs needed for the specific treatment of an HAE attack to be sent to the emergency department of the local hospital. The primary outcome measure is the number of hospital admissions for an HAE attack. Each patient will be followed up every 2 months for 2 years. The study has been approved by the ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes d'Ile de France 10; registration number: 2012-A00044-39; date of approval: 19 January 2012). DISCUSSION: The SOS-HAE protocol has been designed to address the handling of attacks experienced by patients with HAE in the home. The proposed trial will determine whether the setting up of a dedicated call centre is more effective than usual practice in terms of reducing morbidity as given by the numbers of hospital admissions. The results are also anticipated to have important implications in terms of socio-economic costs for both healthcare services and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01679912 .

[Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits]. / Dépistage des intoxications au monoxyde de carbone (CO) par des médecins généralistes effectuant des visites à domicile.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. METHODS: CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm. Measurement of CO in expired breath was also possible. Activity and alarms were prospectively collected. Circumstances of intoxication were recorded. Evaluation was finally performed. The end-poind was to quantify CO-poisoning detected by the use of the device and the cost of this stratégy. RESULTS: From November 2001 to November 2004, 65 scenes of intoxication with 79 victims were prospectively reported by 12 general practionners. Final evaluation revealed that 23 physicians omitted to declare alarms. Alarm incidence was of 1 for 17.527 visits; with a related cost of approximately 858 euros for 24 months. Ambient carbon monoxide concentration exceeded 200ppm in 25% of cases. Hospital admission was required for 91% of the victims. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed in two cases. General practionners (n=272) considered that CO detector was useful for safety reasons (91%), they wanted to continue the experience, but did not plan to buy such device (59%). DISCUSSION: Use of CO detectors by general practionners visiting patients at home allowed to identify 65 scenes of CO intoxication. In most cases, the cause of the visit did not suggested CO poisoning. The cost of the device seems to limits its large use. CONCLUSION: CO detector is a safety tool for both general prationners and patients. Its large use has to be questioned.