Inappropriate hospital admission as a risk factor for the subsequent development of adverse events: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: All health overuse implies an unnecessary risk of patients suffering adverse events (AEs). However, this hypothesis has not been corroborated by direct estimates for inappropriate hospital admission (IHA). The objectives of the study were the following: (1) to analyze the association between IHA and the development of subsequent AEs; (2) to explore the distinct clinical and economic implications of AEs subsequent IHA compared to appropriate admissions. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted on hospitalized patients in May 2019 in a high-complexity hospital in Madrid, Spain. The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol was used to measure IHA, and the methodologies of the Harvard Medical Practice Study and the European Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-associated Infections were used to detect and characterize AEs. The association between IHA and the subsequent. RESULTS: A total of 558 patients in the hospital ward were studied. IHA increased the risk of subsequent occurrence of AEs (OR [95% CI]: 3.54 [1.87 to 6.69], versus appropriate) and doubled the mean AEs per patient (coefficient [95% CI]: 0.19 [0.08 to 0.30] increase, versus appropriate) after adjusting for confounders. IHA was a predictive variable of subsequent AEs and the number of AEs per patient. AEs developed after IHA were associated with scheduled admissions (78.9% of AEs, versus 27.9% after appropriate admissions; p < 0.001). Compared with AEs developed after appropriate admissions, AEs after IHA added 2.4 additional days of stay in the intensive care unit and incurred an extra cost of €166,324.9 for the studied sample. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IHA have a higher risk of subsequent occurrence of AE. Due to the multifactorial nature of AEs, IHA is a possible contributing factor. AEs developed after IHA are associated with scheduled admissions, prolonged ICU stays, and resulted in significant cost overruns.

Adverse events: an expensive and avoidable hospital problem.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse healthcare-related events (AE) entail reduced patient safety. Estimating their frequency, characteristics, avoidability and impact is a means to identify targets for improvement in the quality of care. METHODS: This was a descriptive observational study conducted within the Patient Safety Incident Study in Hospitals in the Community of Madrid (ESHMAD). The study was conducted in a high-complexity hospital in May 2019 through a two-phase electronic medical record review: (1) AE screening and epidemiological and clinical data collection and (2) AE review and classification and analysis of their impact, avoidability, and associated costs. RESULTS: A total of 636 patients were studied. The prevalence of AE was 12.4%. Death during the stay was associated with the presence of AE (OR [CI95%]: 2.15 [1.07 to 4.52]) versus absence and emergency admission (OR [CI95%]: 17.11[6.63 to 46.26]) versus scheduled. A total of 70.2% of the AEs were avoidable. Avoidable AEs were associated with the presence of pressure ulcers (OR [CI95%]: 2.77 [1.39 to 5.51]), central venous catheter (OR [CI95%]: 2.58 [1.33 to 5.00]) and impaired mobility (OR [CI95%]: 2.24[1.35 to 3.71]), versus absences. They were associated too with the stays in the intensive care unit (OR [CI95%]: 2.75 [1.07 to 7.06]) versus medical service. AEs were responsible for additional costs of €909,716.8 for extra days of stay and €12,461.9 per patient with AE. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AEs was similar to that found in other studies. AEs led to worse patient outcomes and were associated with the patient's death. Although avoidable AEs were less severe, their higher frequency produced a greater impact on the patient and healthcare system.Key messagesAdverse events are one of the main problems in healthcare delivery and patients who suffer from at least one AE are double as likely to die during hospitalization.Avoidable adverse events are the most frequent in health care and they are a good target where achieve improvement areas that allow getting optimal patient safety and quality of care levels.Patients hospitalized in the ICU, with the previous presence of pressure ulcers, central venous catheter, or impaired mobility were associated with the development of avoidable AE, so optimal management of these patients would reduce the impact of AE.

How Does Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 Affect Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19?

(1) Background: The development of effective COVID-19 vaccines has reduced the impact of COVID-19 on the general population. Our study aims to analyze how vaccination modifies the likelihood of death and length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1927 hospitalized patients infected with COVID-19 was conducted. Information was gathered on vaccination status, hospitalization episode, and clinical profile of the patients. The effect of vaccination on mortality was analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model, and length of stay was analyzed using linear regression. The performance and fit of the models were evaluated; (3) Results: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the risk of dying during admission in vaccinated patients was half that of non-vaccinated (OR: 0.45; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.84). In patients who were discharged due to improvement, the reduction in hospital stay in vaccinated patients was 3.17 days (CI 95%: 5.88 to 0.47); (4) Conclusions: Patients who, despite having been vaccinated, acquire the infection by SARS-CoV-2, have a significant reduction of the risk of death during admission and a reduction of hospital stay compared with unvaccinated patients.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on nosocomial Clostridioides difficile infection.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has induced a reinforcement of infection control measures in the hospital setting. Here, we assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of nosocomial Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). METHODS: We retrospectively compared the incidence density (cases per 10,000 patient days) of healthcare-facility-associated (HCFA) CDI in a tertiary-care hospital in Madrid, Spain, during the maximum incidence of COVID-19 (March 11 to May 11, 2020) with the same period of the previous year (control period). We also assessed the aggregate in-hospital antibiotic use (ie, defined daily doses [DDD] per 100 occupied bed days [BD]) and incidence density (ie, movements per 1,000 patient days) of patient mobility during both periods. RESULTS: In total, 2,337 patients with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital during the COVID-19 period. Also, 12 HCFA CDI cases were reported at this time (incidence density, 2.68 per 10,000 patient days), whereas 34 HCFA CDI cases were identified during the control period (incidence density, 8.54 per 10,000 patient days) (P = .000257). Antibiotic consumption was slightly higher during the COVID-19 period (89.73 DDD per 100 BD) than during the control period (79.16 DDD per 100 BD). The incidence density of patient movements was 587.61 per 1,000 patient days during the control period and was significantly lower during the COVID-19 period (300.86 per 1,000 patient days) (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The observed reduction of ~70% in the incidence density of HCFA CDI in a context of no reduction in antibiotic use supports the importance of reducing nosocomial transmission by healthcare workers and asymptomatic colonized patients, reinforcing cleaning procedures and reducing patient mobility in the epidemiological control of CDI.

Estimation of the Overuse of Preoperative Chest X-rays According to "Choosing Wisely", "No Hacer", and "Essencial" Initiatives: Are They Equally Applicable and Comparable?

BACKGROUND: Overuse reduces the efficiency of healthcare systems and compromises patient safety. Different institutions have issued recommendations on the indication of preoperative chest X-rays, but the degree of compliance with these recommendations is unknown. This study investigates the frequency and characteristics of the inappropriateness of this practice. METHODS: This is a descriptive observational study with analytical components, performed in a tertiary hospital in the Community of Madrid (Spain) between July 2018 and June 2019. The inappropriateness of preoperative chest X-ray tests was analyzed according to "Choosing Wisely", "No Hacer" and "Essencial" initiatives and the cost associated with this practice was estimated in Relative Value and Monetary Units. RESULTS: A total of 3449 preoperative chest X-ray tests were performed during the period of study. In total, 5.4% of them were unjustified according to the "No Hacer" recommendation and 73.3% according to "Choosing Wisely" and "Essencial" criteria, which would be equivalent to 5.6% and 11.8% of the interventions in which this test was unnecessary, respectively. One or more preoperative chest X-ray(s) were indicated in more than 20% of the interventions in which another chest X-ray had already been performed in the previous 3 months. A higher inappropriateness score was also recorded for interventions with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III (16.5%). The Anesthesiology service obtained a lower inappropriateness score than other Petitioning Surgical Services (57.5% according to "Choosing Wisely" and "Essencial"; 4.1% according to "No Hacer"). Inappropriate indication of chest X-rays represents an annual cost of EUR 52,122.69 (170.1 Relative Value Units) according to "No Hacer" and EUR 3895.29 (2276.1 Relative Value Units) according to "Choosing Wisely" or "Essencial" criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variability between the recommendations that directly affected the degree of inappropriateness found, with the main reasons for inappropriateness being duplication of preoperative chest X-rays and the lack of consideration of the particularities of thoracic interventions. This inappropriateness implies a significant expense according to the applicable recommendations and therefore a high opportunity cost.

Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

¿Podemos contribuir a mejorar los hábitos de alimentación desde los Servicios de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública? / No disponible

No disponible