ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate hospital admissions compromise the efficiency of the health care system. This work analyzes, for the first time, the prevalence of inappropriate admission and its association with clinical and epidemiological patient characteristics. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence, associated risk factors, and economic impact of inappropriate hospital admissions. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cross-sectional observational study of all hospitalized patients in a high complexity hospital of over 901 beds capacity in Spain. The prevalence of inappropriate admission and its causes, the association of inappropriateness with patients' intrinsic risk factors (IRFs), and associated financial costs were analyzed with the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol in a multivariate model. MAIN MEASURES AND KEY RESULTS: A total of 593 patients were analyzed, and a prevalence of inappropriate admissions of 11.9% (95% CI: 9.5 to 14.9) was found. The highest number of IRFs for developing health care-related complications was associated with inappropriateness, which was more common among patients with 1 IRF (OR [95% CI]: 9.68 [3.6 to 26.2.] versus absence of IRFs) and among those with surgical admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.89 [1.1 to 3.3] versus medical admissions). The prognosis of terminal disease reduced the risk (OR [95% CI]: 0.28 [0.1 to 0.9] versus a prognosis of full recovery based on baseline condition). Inappropriate admissions were responsible for 559 days of avoidable hospitalization, equivalent to 17,604.6 daily and 139,076.4 in total, mostly attributable to inappropriate emergency admissions (96,805.3). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of inappropriate admissions is similar to the incidence found in previous studies and is a useful indicator in monitoring this kind of overuse. Patients with a moderate number of comorbidities were subject to a higher level of inappropriateness. Inappropriate admission had a substantial and avoidable financial impact.
Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Length of Stay , Cross-Sectional Studies , Costs and Cost Analysis , Patient AdmissionABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Adverse Events (AE) are one of the main problems in healthcare. Therefore, many policies have been developed worldwide to mitigate their impact. The Patient Safety Incident Study in Hospitals in the Community of Madrid (ESHMAD) measures the results of them in the region. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, conducted in May 2019, in hospitalised patients in 34 public hospitals using the Harvard Medical Practice Study methodology. A logistic regression model was carried out to study the association of the variables with the presence of AE, calibrated and adjusted by patient. RESULTS: A total of 9,975 patients were included, estimating a prevalence of AE of 11.9%. A higher risk of AE was observed in patients with surgical procedures (OR[CI95%]: 2.15[1.79 to 2.57], vs. absence), in Intensive Care Units (OR[CI95%]: 1.60[1.17 to 2.17], vs. Medical), and in hospitals of medium complexity (OR[CI95%]: 1.45[1.12 to 1.87], vs. low complexity). A 62.6% of AE increased the length of the stay or it was the cause of admission, and 46.9% of AE were considered preventable. In 11.5% of patients with AE, they had contributed to their death. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AE remains similar to the previously estimated in studies developed with the same methodology. AE keep leading to longer hospital stays, contributing to patient's death, showing that it is necessary to put focus on patient safety again. A detailed analysis of these events has enabled the detection of specific areas for improvement according to the type of care, centre, and patient.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has caused problems with respirator supplies. Re-use may minimize the impact of the shortage, but requires the availability of an efficient and safe decontamination method. AIM: To determine whether low-temperature-steam-2%-formaldehyde (LTSF) sterilization is effective, preserves the properties of filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators and allows safe re-use. METHODS: Fourteen unused FFP2, FFP3 and N95 respirator models were subjected to two cycles of decontamination cycles. After the second cycle, each model was inspected visually and accumulated residual formaldehyde levels were analysed according to EN 14180. After one and two decontamination cycles, the fit factor (FF) of each model was tested, and penetration tests with sodium chloride aerosols were performed on five models. FINDINGS: Decontamination physically altered three of the 14 models. All of the residual formaldehyde values were below the permissible threshold. Irregular decreases and increases in FF were observed after each decontamination cycle. In the sodium chloride aerosol penetration test, three models obtained equivalent or superior results to those of the FFP classification with which they were marketed, both at baseline and after one and two cycles of decontamination, and two models had lower filtering capacity. CONCLUSION: One and two decontamination cycles using LTSF did not alter the structure of most (11/14) respirators tested, and did not degrade the fit or filtration capacity of any of the analysed respirators. The residual formaldehyde levels complied with EN 14180. This reprocessing method could be used in times of shortage of personal protective equipment.
