Implementing a Rapid Response System in a tertiary-care hospital. A cost-effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: The occurrence of adverse events (AE) in hospitalized patients substancially increases the risk of disability or death, having a major negative clinical and economic impact on public health. For early identification of patients at risk and to establish preventive measures, different healthcare systems have implemented rapid response systems (RRS). The aim of this study was to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing a RRS in a tertiary-care hospital. METHODS: We included all the patients admitted to Hospital Clínic de Barcelona from 1 to 2016 to 31 December 2016. The cost-effectiveness analysis was summarized as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost divided by the incremental effectiveness of the two alternatives, RRS versus non-RRS). The effectiveness of the RRS, defined as improvements in health outcomes (AE, cardiopulmonary arrest and mortality), was obtained from the literature and applied to the included patient cohort. A budget impact analysis on the implementation of the RRS from a hospital perspective was performed over a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: 42,409 patients were included, and 448 (1.05%) had severe AE requiring ICU admission. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed an incremental cost (savings) of EUR - 1,471,101 of RRS versus the non-RRS. The budgetary impact showed a cost reduction of EUR 896,762.00 in the first year and EUR 1,588,579.00 from the second to the fifth year. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis shows the RRS as a dominant, less costly and more effective structure compared to the non-RRS.

[Management of elective surgical activity in a tertiary hospital during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic]. / Gestión de la actividad quirúrgica electiva de un hospital terciario durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, elective surgical activity was reduced to a minimum. As both the number of cases and the hospitalization needs for this pathology decreased, we thought it appropriate to progressively recover scheduled surgical activity. This work describes how, even with the current alarm state, we were able to practically normalize this activity in a few weeks. METHODS: Two weeks before the intervention, the patients included in the waiting lists were contacted by telephone. After checking their health status and expressing their desire to undergo surgery, they were provided with recommendations to decrease the risk of coronavirus infection. Likewise, an exclusive circuit was established to carry out, 48 hours before the intervention, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by means of exudates nasopharyngeal PCR. The results were evaluated by each surgical service and the anesthesiology service. In addition, asymptomatic Surgical Area professionals could undergo weekly screening for the early detection of coronavirus according to the recommendations of Occupational Health. RESULTS: In the midst of a pandemic, scheduled surgical activity was reduced by 85%. From the week of April 13, the operating rooms available were recovered, which allowed practically all surgical activity to be recovered the week of May 25. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of circuits and procedures to streamline surgical activity, still in full force of the state of alarm, has allowed us, in a few weeks, to recover almost all of it.