A rapid assessment of take-home naloxone provision during COVID-19 in Europe.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In the following weeks, most European countries implemented national lockdowns to mitigate viral spread. Services for people who use drugs had to quickly revise their operating procedures to rearrange service provision while adhering to lockdown requirements. Given the scarcity of literature published on overdose prevention during COVID-19 in Europe, we aimed to examine how these changes to service provision affected take-home naloxone (THN) programmes and naloxone availability across Europe. METHODS: Between November 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a rapid assessment with country experts from European countries that provide THN. We sent country experts a template to report monthly THN distribution data (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2020) and a structured 6-item survey for completion. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 of the 15 European countries with THN provision of which 11 participated in the rapid assessment: Austria, Denmark, England, Estonia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain (Catalonia only), Sweden, and Wales. All reported reduced organisational capacity during COVID-19, and some put into place a range of novel approaches to manage the restrictions on face-to-face service provision. In six countries, the introduction of programme innovation occurred alongside the publication of government guidelines recommending increased THN provision during COVID-19. Eight of the eleven participating countries managed to maintain 2019-level monthly THN distribution rates or even increase provision during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Through programme innovation supported by public guidelines, many European THN programmes managed to ensure stable or even increased THN provision during the pandemic, despite social distancing and stay-at-home orders affecting client mobility.

Healthcare resource utilisation and predictors for critical care unit admissions after primary bariatric surgery in an Australian public hospital setting: an exploratory study using a mixed-methods approach.

Objectives The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate resource use and predictors associated with critical care unit (CCU) admission after primary bariatric surgery within the Tasmanian public healthcare system. Methods Patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery in the Tasmanian Health Service (THS) public hospital system between 7 July 2013 and 30 June 2019 were eligible for inclusion in this study. The THS provides two levels of CCU support, an intensive care unit (ICU) and a high dependency unit (HDU). A mixed-methods approach was performed to examine the resource use and predictors associated with overall CCU admission, as well as levels of HDU and ICU admission. Results There were 254 patients in the study. Of these, 44 (17.3%) required 54 postoperative CCU admissions, with 43% requiring HDU support and 57% requiring more resource-demanding ICU support. Overall, CCU patients were more likely to have higher preoperative body mass index and multimorbidity and to undergo sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass. Patients undergoing gastric banding were more likely to require HDU rather than ICU support. Total hospital stays and median healthcare costs were higher for CCU (particularly ICU) patients than non-CCU patients. Conclusions Bariatric surgery patients often have significant comorbidities. This study demonstrates that patients with higher levels of morbidity are more likely to require critical care postoperatively. Because this is elective surgery, being able to identify patients who are at increased risk is important to plan either the availability of critical care or even interventions to improve patients' preoperative risk. Further work is required to refine the pre-existing conditions that contribute most to the requirement for critical care management (particularly in the ICU setting) in the perioperative period. What is known about the topic? Few studies (both Australian and international) have investigated the use of CCUs after bariatric surgery. Those that report CCU admission rates are disparate across the contemporaneous literature, reflecting the different healthcare systems and their associated incentives. In Australia, the incidence and utilisation of CCUs (consisting of HDUs and ICUs) after bariatric surgery have only been reported using Western Australian administrative data. What does the paper add? CCU patients were more likely to have a higher preoperative body mass index and multimorbidity and to undergo a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass procedure. Just over half (57%) of these patients were managed in the ICU. Sleeve gastrectomy patients had a higher incidence of peri- and postoperative complications that resulted in an unplanned ICU admission. Hospital length of stay and aggregated costs were higher for CCU (particularly ICU) patients. What are the implications for practitioners? The association of increased CCU (particularly ICU) use with multimorbidity and peri- and postoperative complications could enable earlier recognition of patients that are more likely to require CCU and ICU support, therefore allowing improved planning when faced with increasing rates of bariatric surgery. We suggest streamlined clinical guidelines that anticipate CCU support for people with severe and morbid obesity who undergo bariatric surgery should be considered from a national perspective.

Resource utilization and disaggregated cost analysis of bariatric surgery in the Australian public healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: To present a comprehensive real-world micro-costing analysis of bariatric surgery. METHODS: Patients were included if they underwent primary bariatric surgery (gastric banding [GB], gastric bypass [GBP] and sleeve gastrectomy [SG]) between 2013 and 2019. Costs were disaggregated into cost items and average-per-patient costs from the Australian healthcare systems perspective were expressed in constant 2019 Australian dollars for the entire cohort and subgroup analysis. Annual population-based costs were calculated to capture longitudinal trends. A generalized linear model (GLM) predicted the overall bariatric-related costs. RESULTS: N = 240 publicly funded patients were included, with the waitlist times of ≤ 10.7 years. The mean direct costs were $11,269. The operating theatre constituted the largest component of bariatric-related costs, followed by medical supplies, salaries, critical care use, and labour on-costs. Average cost for SG ($12,632) and GBP ($15,041) was higher than that for GB ($10,049). Operating theatre accounted for the largest component for SG/GBP costs, whilst medical supplies were the largest for GB. We observed an increase in SG and a decrease in GB procedures over time. Correspondingly, the main cost driver changed from medical supplies in 2014-2015 for GB procedures to operating theatre for SG thereafter. GLM model estimates of bariatric average cost ranged from $7,580 to $36,633. CONCLUSIONS: We presented the first detailed characterization of the scale, disaggregated profile and determinants of bariatric-related costs, and examined the evolution of resource utilization patterns and costs, reflecting the shift in the Australian bariatric landscape over time. Understanding these patterns and forecasting of future changes are critical for efficient resource allocation.

Developing metrics for hospital medical workforce allocation.

Public hospitals deliver a broad range of specialist treatments to patients, with public demand for hospital services almost always outstripping supply. Health department and hospital managers prioritise requests for additional resources, such as medical staffing, across the full spectrum of services delivered. Without a clear and equitable basis of workload comparison across medical specialties, this decision-making process can be controversial and internally divisive. This paper outlines the development of a metric to guide the allocation of hospital medical staff. It suggests that a valid comparison of workload can be gained from the consideration of the number of inpatients (weighted for case complexity) and the number of outpatient presentations, as seen by each full-time hospital medical practitioner per annum. While this supports a "common sense" understanding of hospital medical activity, it also reflects limitations in the quality and quantity of data available. The replication and testing of this methodology in other jurisdictions is encouraged.