Time intervals in the care pathway to cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: A large retrospective study from a high-volume center.

Despite extensive research on cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence on the impact on prediagnostic time intervals is lacking. To better understand how COVID-19 changed the pathway to diagnosis of cancer, we examined the length of intervals from symptom onset to diagnosis for 13 common cancer types with known clinical stage over 1-year nonpandemic period (March 2019 to March 2020; N = 844) and three biannual COVID periods (March 2020 to September 2021; N = 1172). We analyzed the patient interval (from first symptoms to presentation to a physician), the primary care/emergency department interval (from presentation with relevant symptoms to a primary care or emergency department physician to referral to a hospital-based diagnosis center) and the hospital interval (from referral to diagnosis). Compared to nonpandemic data, there were significant changes across COVID periods. The pandemic mostly impacted patient intervals for cancers diagnosed over the first 6 months after onset in March 2020. Overall median patient intervals were longest in the early COVID period (39 [IQR 22-64] days) and shortest in the nonpandemic period (20 [IQR 13-30] days; Kruskal-Wallis test [χ2 ], P < .0001). Differences in clinical stage between periods were relevant, with cancers from the mid-period (September 2020 to March 2021) showing the most advanced stage. A shift to later stage was plausibly a result of delayed intervals in the early COVID period. Since intervals are eventually relevant to prognosis, our results provide a baseline against which the impact of improvement strategies to minimize the negative outcomes of COVID-19-associated cancer delays can be assessed and implemented.

Time intervals in the pathway to emergency cancer diagnosis.

Aim: Evidence on time-based metrics for cancers diagnosed through emergency presentation is lacking. We examined the duration of intervals from first symptoms to cancer diagnosis in the emergency versus primary care (PC) presentation route. Methods: Retrospective study of outpatients diagnosed with 15 solid cancers over 5 years. The outcome was the length of prediagnostic intervals by diagnostic route. Results: Median intervals in emergency presenters (n = 3167) were shorter than in PC presenters (n = 2215). However, intervals in emergency presenters with three or more prior PC consultations were similar to PC but remarkably longer than in those with one or two and no consultations. Conclusion: As we provide new interval measures for the emergency diagnostic pathway, results highlight the contribution of prior consultations to interval lengths.

Tumour markers with clinically controlled cut-offs for suspected cancer.

BACKGROUND: Due to insufficient scientific evidence, panels of tumour markers (TMs) are currently not recommended for use in suspected cancer. However, recent well-designed studies have revealed a potential clinical value in lung cancer. We analysed the diagnostic accuracy of a panel of 11 circulating TMs with clinically controlled thresholds in the differentiation of cancer from nonmalignant diseases. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 4776 consecutive patients presenting with focal or nonspecific symptoms suggestive of cancer who underwent testing for 11 serum TMs before diagnosis was known. The study abided by 2015 STARD guidelines. Tumour markers included, among others, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, squamous cell carcinoma-associated antigen, prostate-specific antigen (males), neuron-specific enolase, progastrin-releasing peptide and carbohydrate antigen 125. Thresholds were adjusted for the presence of kidney failure, liver disease, effusions and dermatological disorders. Results showing ≥1 TMs with concentrations above threshold were considered positive. RESULTS: Benign diseases were diagnosed in 3281 (68.7%) patients and cancer in 1495 (31.3%), with epithelial cancers in 1214 (77% at stage IV). When applying criteria for controlled thresholds, overall specificity was 98%. Overall sensitivity of the panel in epithelial cancers was 72.2%, positive predictive value 93% and negative predictive value 90.5%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.920 (95% confidence interval, 0.902-0.924). CONCLUSIONS: By using clinically controlled cut-offs, the combined panel demonstrated an excellent ability to discriminate epithelial cancers from nonmalignant diseases. However, its use in clinical practice would need formal validation through a multicentre controlled trial assessing a panel-guided strategy vs. standard diagnosis.

The impact of Covid-19 on patients with suspected cancer: An analysis of ED presentation and referrals to a quick diagnosis unit.

PURPOSE: Patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED) who have concerning symptoms suggestive of a cancer diagnosis are mostly referred to the quick diagnosis unit of our tertiary hospital. This study analyzed the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the volume, disease patterns, and accessibility to essential investigations of patients with suspected cancer referred by the ED to this unit. METHODS: Trends in referrals were analyzed from January 1 to July 8, 2020 and the corresponding dates of 2019. Only non-Covid-19 conditions were evaluated. Three time-based cohorts were defined: prepandemic (January 1-February 19), pandemic (February 19-April 22), and postpandemic (April 22-July 8). Along with descriptive statistics, linear regression was used to test for time trends with weekly referrals as the dependent variable. RESULTS: There were 384, 193, and 450 patients referred during the prepandemic, pandemic, and postpandemic periods, respectively. Following an increasing rate, referrals decreased to unprecedented levels in the pandemic period (average weekly slope: -2.1 cases), then increasing again until near normalization. Waiting times to most diagnostic procedures including radiology, endoscopic, nuclear medicine, and biopsy/cytology during the pandemic period were significantly delayed and time-to-diagnosis was considerably longer (19.72 ± 10.37 days vs. 8.33 ± 3.94 days in prepandemic and 13.49 ± 6.45 days in postpandemic period; P < 0.001 in both). Compared to other cohorts, pandemic cohort patients were more likely to have unintentional weight loss and fever of unknown origin as referral indications while anemia and lymphadenopathy were less common. Patients from the pandemic cohort had a significantly lower rate of malignancies and higher of benign gastrointestinal disorders (40.93% vs. 19.53% and 20.89% in prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively; P < 0.001 in both), most notably irritable bowel disease, and of mental and behavioral disorders (15.54% vs. 3.39% and 6.00% in prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively; P < 0.001 in both). CONCLUSIONS: As our hospital switched its traditional care to one focused on Covid-19 patients, recognized indicators of healthcare quality of quick diagnosis units were severely disrupted. The clinical patterns of presentation and diagnosis of the pandemic period suggested that mass media-generated mental and behavioral responses with distressing symptoms played a significant role in most of these patients.

Elderly patients treated with psychotropic medicines admitted to hospital: associated characteristics and inappropriate use.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of older patients treated with psychotropic medicines and the associated factors and to assess their inappropriate use. METHODS: An observational, prospective study was carried out in 672 elderly patients admitted to seven hospitals for a year. A comparison of sociodemographic characteristics, geriatric variables, multimorbidity and the number of prescribed medicines taken in the preceding month before hospitalization between patients treated with psychotropics and those not treated was performed. To assess factors associated with psychotropics, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Inappropriate use was assessed using the Beers and the STOPP criteria. RESULTS: A total of 57.5 % patients (median [Q1-Q3] age 81.7 [78.2-86.1], 65.7 % female) were treated with psychotropics (44.2 % anxiolytics, 22.6 % antidepressants and 10.8 % antipsychotics). Independent factors associated with the use of psychotropics were female gender (OR = 2.3; CI 95 %,1.6-3.5), some degree of disability on admission (slight [OR = 2.2; 1.2-4.2], moderate [OR = 3.2, 1.6-6.6], severe [OR = 3.4; 1.4-8] and very severe [OR = 5.1; 2.0-12.8]) and polypharmacy (5-9 medicines [OR = 3.0; 1.3-6.9] and ≥10 medicines [OR = 6.0; 2.7-13.6]). The associated factors varied depending on the different types of psychotropics. In patients treated with psychotropics, the percentage of those with at least one Beers (61.6 %) or at least one STOPP (71.4 %) criteria was significantly higher in comparison with those not treated with psychotropics (30.7 and 47.7 %, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropics are widely used in the elderly population and often their use is inappropriate. Female gender, a poor functional status and polypharmacy, are the characteristics linked to their use. Interventional strategies should be focused on patients with these characteristics.

Factors Associated with Hospitalization among Emergency Department Patients Referred for Quick Investigation of Iron-Deficiency Anemia.

BACKGROUND: Although patients with anemia are frequently seen in emergency departments (EDs), studies on patients presenting there with symptomatic chronic anemia--usually iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) caused by occult gastrointestinal bleeding--are lacking. Awareness of predictors of hospitalization could direct the ED triage to the appropriate diagnostic setting. OBJECTIVE: Based on initial observations that some patients with IDA were hospitalized after ED referral and initial evaluation at a quick diagnosis unit (QDU), a new cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for diagnostic workup, this study aimed to determine the patient factors associated with hospitalization after the first QDU visit. METHODS: An 8-year prospective cohort study of patients with IDA referred from the ED to the QDU of a third-level university hospital was conducted. Patients with a baseline hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL in the ED, proven iron deficiency, and no overt bleeding were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization after the initial QDU assessment. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four (7.7%) of 3692 patients were hospitalized. Inter-rater agreement of appropriateness of admissions was 90.6% (κ = 0.82). Overall, 90% of study patients presented to the ED with symptomatic anemia, and 87% were transfused there. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, living alone, a post-transfusion hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL, higher age-adjusted overall comorbidity, heart failure, and poor physical health-related quality of life at first QDU visit independently predicted hospitalization. CONCLUSION: While these predictors do not necessarily reflect the need for hospitalization, they are easily evaluated during the initial ED visit and can guide the triage of similar IDA patients to the suitable setting for timely investigation.

Prevalence of sarcopenia in patients attending outpatient geriatric clinics: the ELLI study.

OBJECTIVES: the aim of this study is to know the prevalence of sarcopenia in geriatric outpatient clinics using the EGWSOP (European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People) diagnostic criteria that include muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance. METHODS: subjects over 69 years old, able to walk without help and who attended five geriatric outpatient clinics were recruited. Body composition was assessed using bioimpedance analysis (BIA), grip strength using a JAMAR dynamometer and physical performance by the 4 m gait speed. Sarcopenia was diagnosed using the EGWSOP criteria (gait speed <0.8 m/s; grip strength <30 kg in men or <20 kg in women, and muscle mass index (MMI) <8.31 kg/m(2) in men or <6.68 kg/m(2) in women). RESULTS: two hundred and ninety-eight subjects were included (median age 83.2 years, 63.1% women). 19.1% had sarcopenia (12.7% men, 22.9% women); 20.1% had low muscle mass; 68.8% had low gait speed and 81.2% low grip strength. Only 21.9% of the subjects with low grip strength and 19.5% of those with low gait speed had sarcopenia. No correlations between muscle mass and either muscle strength or gait speed were detected. CONCLUSIONS: sarcopenia is present in one out of five subjects attending geriatric outpatient clinics.

Inappropriate prescribing to the oldest old patients admitted to hospital: prevalence, most frequently used medicines, and associated factors.

BACKGROUND: Scientific evidence on treatments of chronic diseases in patients 85 years old or older is very limited, as is available information on inappropriate prescription (IP) and its associated factors. The study aimed to describe medicine prescription, potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM) and potentially prescribing omissions (PPO) and their associated factors on this population. METHODS: In the context of an observational, prospective and multicentric study carried out in elderly patients admitted to seven Spanish hospitals for a year, a sub-analysis of those aged 85 years and over was performed. To assess PIMs, the Beers and STOPP criteria were used, and to assess PPOs, the START and the ACOVE-3 criteria were used. To assess factors associated with IP, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Patients were selected randomly every week on consecutive days from the hospitalization lists. RESULTS: A total of 336 patients were included in the sub-analysis with a median (Q1-Q3) age of 88 (86-90) years. The median medicines taken during the month prior to admission was 10 (7-13). Forty-seven point two per cent of patients had at least one Beers-listed PIM, 63.3% at least one STOPP-listed PIM, 53.6% at least one START-listed PPO, and 59.4% at least one ACOVE-3-listed PPO. Use of benzodiazepines in patients who are prone to falls (18.3%) and omission of calcium and vitamin D supplements in patients with osteoporosis (13.3%) were the most common PIM and PPO, respectively. The main factor associated with the Beers-listed and the STOPP-listed PIM was consumption of 10 or more medicines (OR = 5.7, 95% CI 1.8-17.9 and OR = 13.4, 95% CI 4.0-44.0, respectively). The main factors associated with the START-listed PPO was a non-community dwelling origin (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.0), and multimorbidity (OR1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed medicines and PIM and PPO prevalence were high among patients 85 years and over. Benzodiazepine use in those who are prone to falls and omission of calcium and vitamin D in those with osteoporosis were the most frequent PIM and PPO, respectively. Factors associated with PIM and PPO differed with polypharmacy being the most important factor associated with PIM.

Diagnosing unexplained fever: can quick diagnosis units replace inpatient hospitalization?

BACKGROUND: Outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDUs) have become an increasingly recognized alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of a number of potentially serious diseases. No study has prospectively evaluated the usefulness of QDU for the diagnosis of unexplained fever. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively assessed patients referred to QDU due to fever of uncertain nature (FUN), defined as a temperature > 38 °C during at least 1 week and no diagnosis after a previous evaluation. We also evaluated consecutive patients with FUN who were hospitalized during the same period. QDU and hospital costs were analysed by micro-costing techniques. RESULTS: We evaluated 176 QDU patients and 168 controls. QDU patients were younger and required fewer investigations than controls. QDU patients had higher prevalence of viral infections (36% vs. 8%, P < 0·001) and lower prevalence of bacterial infections (6% vs. 46%, P < 0·001) and malignancies (2% vs. 14%, P < 0·001). While time-to-diagnosis of QDU patients was longer than length-of-stay of controls (25·82 vs.12·89 days, P < 0·001), 56% of QDU patients only required up to two visits. Cost per QDU patient was €644·59, while it was €4404·64 per hospitalized patient. CONCLUSIONS: QDU patients with FUN were younger and had less serious diseases than controls including more viral and less bacterial infections and fewer malignancies. Mainly owing to untimely diagnostic reports, time-to-diagnosis was longer in QDU patients. Cost-savings in QDU were substantial. Using objective tools to evaluate the condition severity and general health status of FUN patients could help decide the most appropriate setting for their diagnostic study.

Primary care referrals of patients with potentially serious diseases to the emergency department or a quick diagnosis unit: a cross-sectional retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In Spain, primary healthcare (PHC) referrals for diagnostic procedures are subject to long waiting-times, and physicians and patients often use the emergency department (ED) as a shortcut. We aimed to determine whether patients evaluated at a hospital outpatient quick diagnosis unit (QDU) who were referred to ED from 12 PHC centers could have been directly referred to QDU, thus avoiding ED visits. As a secondary objective, we determined the proportion of QDU patients who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of patients with potentially serious conditions attended by the QDU from December 2007 to December 2012. We established 2 groups of patients: 1) patients referred from PHC to QDU (PHC-QDU group) and 2) patients referred from PHC to ED, then to QDU (PHC-ED-QDU group). Two observers assessed the appropriateness/inappropriateness of each referral using a scoring system. The interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the dependent variable 'ED referral'. RESULTS: We evaluated 1186 PHC-QDU and 1004 PHC-ED-QDU patients and estimated that 93.1% of PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU. In contrast, 96% of PHC-QDU patients were found to be appropriately referred to QDU first. The agreement for PHC-QDU referrals (PHC-QDU group) was rated as excellent (Ï°=0.81), while it was rated as good for PHC-ED referrals (PHC-ED-QDU group) (Ï°=0.75). The mean waiting-time for the first QDU visit was longer in PHC-QDU (4.8 days) than in PHC-ED-QDU (2.6 days) patients (P=.001). On multivariate analysis, anemia (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.49-4.55, P<.001), rectorrhagia (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.10-3.77, P=.01) and febrile syndrome (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.33-4.12, P=.002) were independent factors associated with ED referral. Nearly one-fifth of all QDU patients were found who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting. CONCLUSIONS: Most PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU from PHC, avoiding the inconvenience of the ED visit. A stricter definition of QDU evaluation criteria may be needed to improve and hasten PHC referrals.

The painful effects of the financial crisis on Spanish health care.

Spain has an advanced, integrated health care system that has achieved remarkable results, including substantially improved health outcomes, over a relatively short time. Measures introduced by central and regional governments to combat the financial crisis may be severely affecting the health sector, with proposed changes potentially threatening the principles of equity and social cohesion underlying the welfare state. This article examines recent developments in Spanish health care, focusing on the austerity measures introduced since 2010. In Spain, as in other countries, evaluation of health care changes is difficult due to the paucity of data and because the effects of measures often lag well behind their introduction, meaning the full effects of changes on access to care or health outcomes only become apparent years later. However, some effects are already clear. With exceptions, Spain has not used the crisis as an opportunity to increase efficiency and quality, rationalize and reorganize health services, increase productivity, and regain public trust. We argue that immediate health care cuts may not be the best long-term answer and suggest evidence-driven interventions that involve the portfolio of free services and the private sector, while ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected.

Clinical characterisation of patients diagnosed with cancer following emergency self-referral.

BACKGROUND: Despite their frequency and potential impact on prognosis, cancers diagnosed via self-referral to the emergency department are poorly documented. We conducted a detailed analysis of cancer patients diagnosed following emergency self-referral and compared them with those diagnosed following emergency referral from primary care. Given the challenges associated with measuring intervals in the emergency self-referral pathway, we also aimed to provide a definition of the diagnostic interval for these cancers. METHODS: A retrospective observational analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with 13 cancers, either following emergency self-referral or emergency referral from primary care. We analysed demographics, tumour stage, clinical data (including 28 presenting symptoms categorised by body systems), and diagnostic intervals by cancer site, then testing for differences between pathways. RESULTS: Out of 3624 patients, 37 % were diagnosed following emergency self-referral and 63 % via emergency referral from primary care. Emergency self-referrals were associated with a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with cancers manifesting with localising symptoms (e.g., breast and endometrial cancer), whereas the likelihood of being diagnosed with cancers featuring nonspecific symptoms and abdominal pain (e.g., pancreatic and ovarian cancer) was higher among patients referred from primary care. Diagnostic intervals in self-referred patients were half as long as those in patients referred from primary care, with most significant differences for pancreatic cancer (28 [95 % CI -34 to -23] days shorter, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings enrich the best available evidence on cancer diagnosis through emergency self-referral and showed that, compared with the emergency referral pathway from primary care, these patients had a significantly increased likelihood of presenting with symptoms that are strongly predictive of cancer. Since the starting point for the diagnostic interval in these patients is their emergency presentation, comparing it with that of those referred from primary care as an emergency is likely to result in biased data.

Time to Diagnosis and Presenting Symptoms of Patients Diagnosed With Cancer Through Emergency and Nonemergency Routes: A Large Retrospective Study From a High-Volume Center.

PURPOSE: The symptoms with which a patient with cancer presents and the route taken to diagnosis (emergency v nonemergency) may affect the speed with which the diagnosis of cancer is made, thereby affecting outcomes. We examined time to diagnosis by symptom for cancers diagnosed through emergency and nonemergency routes (NERs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with 10 solid cancers at Hospital Clínic of Barcelona between March 2013 and June 2023. Cancers were diagnosed through emergency presentation and admission (inpatient emergency route [IER]), emergency presentation and outpatient referral (outpatient emergency route [OER]), and primary care presentation and outpatient referral (NER). We assessed the effect of diagnostic routes on intervals to diagnosis for 19 cancer symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 5,174 and 1,607 patients were diagnosed with cancer through emergency routes and NERs, respectively. Over 85% of patients presenting with alarm (localizing) symptoms such as hematuria through emergency routes were diagnosed with the expected cancer, whereas those with nonlocalizing symptoms such as abdominal pain had a more heterogeneous cancer-site composition. Median intervals were shorter for alarm than nonlocalizing symptoms and tended to be shorter in IERs than OERs. However, for most symptoms, intervals in both routes were invariably shorter than in the NER. For example, diagnostic intervals for hematuria and abdominal pain were 3 and 5 days shorter in IERs than OERs, but they were 5-8 and 17-22 days shorter than in the NER, respectively. CONCLUSION: For patients with alarm symptoms, intervals were shorter than for those with nonlocalizing symptoms and, for most symptoms, intervals were shorter when patients were evaluated by emergency routes rather than NERs.

Clinical and subclinical arteriosclerotic disease in octagenarians with hip fracture. A case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evaluate clinical and subclinical arteriosclerotic disease in older patients with hip fracture compared with patients without fracture in order to increase knowledge about the relation between both diseases in older individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Age- and sex-matched case-control study of octogenarians with and without recent hip fracture. Vascular risk factors, subclinical vascular diseases (assessed by carotid plaques, carotid intima media thickness and arterial stiffness) as well as cardiovascular diseases were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess the association of the arteriosclerosis and hip fracture. RESULTS: We analyzed 95 patients per group with a median age of 82 [79-87] years of whom 77.9% were female. Patients in both groups have elevated rates of vascular disease (25%) without differences between them. Patients with hip fracture had higher subclinical arteriosclerotic alterations with higher percentage of carotid plaques (OR 3.25 [1.06-9.97]) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with hip fracture had significantly higher presence of subclinical alterations but not increase on rate of cardiovascular arteriosclerotic disease compared with those without hip fracture.

Should alternatives to conventional hospitalisation be promoted in an era of financial constraint?

BACKGROUND: Because the current economic crisis has led to austerity in health policies, with severe restrictions on public health care, avoiding unnecessary admissions and shortening hospital stays is rapidly becoming an urgent priority. Alternatives to hospitalisation replace or shorten hospital processes, including diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and follow-up. This review aims to present the available evidence on alternatives to conventional hospitalisation for medical disorders; options for surgery, psychiatry and palliative care are largely excluded. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: The main alternatives to conventional hospitalisation include day centres (DC), quick diagnosis units (QDU), hospital at home (HaH) and, in some circumstances, telemonitoring. DC increase patient comfort, reduce costs and can improve efficiency. In generally healthy patients with suspected severe disease, QDU may be a good alternative to hospitalisation for diagnostic procedures. However, their cost-effectiveness remains to be clearly proven. Randomised controlled trials have shown that hospital-at-home (HaH) can lead to earlier hospital discharges, improve outcomes and reduce costs in patients with prevalent chronic diseases. Although telemonitoring seems to be promising and its use is increasing, methodologically sounder studies with a higher level of evidence are needed to assess its clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Factors such as ageing, the need for an earlier diagnosis of suspected severe disease, the increasing complexity of medical care and the increasing costs of hospitalisation mean that, whenever possible, giving priority to less expensive alternatives to hospital admission, such as QDU, DC, HaH and telemedicine, is an urgent task in the current economic crisis.

Quick diagnosis units: avoiding referrals from primary care to the ED and hospitalizations.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine whether quick diagnosis units (QDUs) can safely and efficiently avoid emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included a prospective cohort of 4170 consecutive patients and a retrospective cohort of 3030 hospitalized patients. Medical records of hospitalized patients were reviewed to determine whether patients were stable enough for outpatient diagnostic workup. We studied primary care (PC) and ED referral patterns in two 25-month periods. Hospital and QDU costs were analyzed by microcosting techniques, and a survey was evaluated using care preferences. RESULTS: From December 2007 to December 2009, 66% QDU patients were referred from PC to ED and 25% from PC to QDU. From January 2010 to January 2012, 35% QDU patients were referred from PC to ED and 53% from PC to QDU (P < .0001). During the first period, 36% ED patients were referred to QDU and 65% (retrospective cohort) were hospitalized, compared with 64% and 35%, respectively, during the second period (P < .0001). Between 84% and 91% of hospitalized patients were stable for QDU workup, and their hospitalization might have been avoided. Cost per process was €3241.11 in hospitalized patients and €726.47 in QDU patients. Most patients preferred the QDU model and were reluctant to first being transferred to ED. CONCLUSIONS: An increasing number of PC and ED patients were referred to the QDU. Hospitalizations might have been avoided in at least 84% of patients. Although QDU and hospitalization are similarly effective in reaching a diagnosis, the QDU model incurs fewer costs.

An Ontology-Based Approach to Improving Medication Appropriateness in Older Patients: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.

Background: Inappropriate medication in older patients with multimorbidity results in a greater risk of adverse drug events. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are intended to improve medication appropriateness. One approach to improving CDSSs is to use ontologies instead of relational databases. Previously, we developed OntoPharma-an ontology-based CDSS for reducing medication prescribing errors. Objective: The primary aim was to model a domain for improving medication appropriateness in older patients (chronic patient domain). The secondary aim was to implement the version of OntoPharma containing the chronic patient domain in a hospital setting. Methods: A 4-step process was proposed. The first step was defining the domain scope. The chronic patient domain focused on improving medication appropriateness in older patients. A group of experts selected the following three use cases: medication regimen complexity, anticholinergic and sedative drug burden, and the presence of triggers for identifying possible adverse events. The second step was domain model representation. The implementation was conducted by medical informatics specialists and clinical pharmacists using Protégé-OWL (Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research). The third step was OntoPharma-driven alert module adaptation. We reused the existing framework based on SPARQL to query ontologies. The fourth step was implementing the version of OntoPharma containing the chronic patient domain in a hospital setting. Alerts generated from July to September 2022 were analyzed. Results: We proposed 6 new classes and 5 new properties, introducing the necessary changes in the ontologies previously created. An alert is shown if the Medication Regimen Complexity Index is ≥40, if the Drug Burden Index is ≥1, or if there is a trigger based on an abnormal laboratory value. A total of 364 alerts were generated for 107 patients; 154 (42.3%) alerts were accepted. Conclusions: We proposed an ontology-based approach to provide support for improving medication appropriateness in older patients with multimorbidity in a scalable, sustainable, and reusable way. The chronic patient domain was built based on our previous research, reusing the existing framework. OntoPharma has been implemented in clinical practice and generates alerts, considering the following use cases: medication regimen complexity, anticholinergic and sedative drug burden, and the presence of triggers for identifying possible adverse events.

Time intervals and previous primary care consultations in the pathway to emergency cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Time intervals and number of prior consultations in primary care (PC) are recognised metrics of diagnostic timeliness of cancer and are interrelated. However, whether and how the two measures correlate with each other in the emergency diagnostic pathway is unknown. We investigated the association between the number of prereferral consultations and the length of intervals from PC presentation to cancer diagnosis following emergency referral to hospital. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they first consulted in PC and were diagnosed with cancer following emergency or nonemergency referral to hospital. We analysed for differences in PC and diagnostic intervals and number of consultations between emergency and nonemergency presenters and determined their associations by cancer type. Differences in presenting symptoms and stage at diagnosis between populations and according to number of consultations were also examined. RESULTS: There were 796 emergency and 865 nonemergency presenters with comparable sociodemographic and comorbidity data. Correlation analysis in emergency presenters revealed a strong positive association between number of consultations and intervals for seven of 13 different cancers, including cancers characterised by high proportions of > 3 consultations and long intervals (pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer) and vice versa for others (e.g., endometrial, cervical, or oesophageal cancer). Additionally, emergency presenters with > 3 consultations were more likely than those with 1-2 to report nonspecific symptoms (60 vs. 40%, respectively) and to be diagnosed at a later stage. CONCLUSION: System level interventions are needed to reduce unnecessary delays in the emergency diagnostic pathway, particularly in cancer patients with multiple prereferral consultations. The findings also suggest opportunities to reduce the proportion of emergency diagnoses by targeting symptomatic individuals pre-presentation.

Utility of serum tumor markers as an aid in the differential diagnosis of patients with clinical suspicion of cancer and in patients with cancer of unknown primary site.

Cancer may be diagnosed in advanced stages, when the patient has already developed metastasis, with symptoms that can be also observed in benign diseases. The objective of this study was to evaluate tumor marker sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis of patients with suspected signs of cancer. We studied 2.711 consecutive patients admitted to the Internal Medicine Department of our hospital with suspected cancer; 1.240 patients had non-malignant processes and 1.471 had malignant disease. Determinations were considered positive for suspected malignancy when serum levels were carcinoembryonic antigen >15 ng/ml (>20 in patients with renal failure or liver disease), alpha fetoprotein >40 ng/ml (>80 ng/ml in patients with liver diseases), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19.9 > 200 U/ml (>500 U/ml in patients with liver diseases or gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) <150 UI/L or effusions; >1.000 U/ml in patients with jaundice or GGT > 150 UI/L), neuron-specific enolase >45 ng/ml (renal failure >50 ng/ml; samples with hemolysis were excluded), prostate-specific antigen > 30 ng/ml (excluding acute prostatitis), tumor-associated glycoprotein-72 >80 U/ml, cytokeratin 19 fragment 21-1 > 7.5 ng/ml (>19 ng/ml in patients with renal failure; >11 ng/ml in patients with liver cirrhosis or jaundice), >3.5 ng/ml for squamous cell carcinoma (excluding patients with renal failure or skin disorders), CA 15.3 >100 U/ml, and CA 125 >350 U/ml (>600 U/ml in patients with pleural effusion and >900 U/ml in those with ascites). There was a specificity of 97.6% in patients without malignancy, 67.4% of sensitivity in patients with malignancy, and 75.4% of sensitivity in the 1,280 patients with epithelial tumors (53.7% in patients with locally advanced tumors and 79.4% in patients with metastases). Sensitivity was 81.4% in patients with cancer of unknown primary site. Tumor markers were useful in the differential diagnosis between epithelial and non-epithelial tumors, brain masses (metastases vs. primary tumors), and between benign or malignant origin of different clinical situations such as wasting syndrome, effusions, liver or bone lesions, and effusions with a positive predictive value higher than 95%. Tumor markers are useful as an aid in the evaluation of the risk of cancer of these patients with suspected cancer and may be useful to reduce the hospitalization time, morbidity, and the number of diagnostic tests required for diagnosis.

Comparison of quick diagnosis units and conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of cancer in Spain: a descriptive cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Quick diagnosis units (QDUs) in Spain provide patients with severe disease who would normally require hospitalization with the prompt and effective diagnosis they deserve. We compared the value and cost of a QDU and of conventional hospitalization in assessing patients with cancer. METHODS: In a descriptive cohort study, 169 patients with a final diagnosis of cancer were prospectively evaluated between November 2008 and April 2010. We also analyzed a retrospective cohort of 53 randomly selected patients with neoplasia hospitalized during this period. In addition to the variables time to diagnosis and length of stay, we compared the costs of both models using microcosting techniques. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer was the commonest cancer (26%). QDU patients were younger than hospitalized patients (68.3 vs. 74.7 years; p < 0.05), and there were also significant differences with respect to the source of referral (p < 0.00001) and destination (p < 0.00001), but not regarding diagnosis (p > 0.34), reason for consultation (p > 0.26) and time to diagnosis/length of stay (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p > 0.05). The mean costs for hospitalization were EUR 4,059.37 compared with EUR 601.84 in the QDU. CONCLUSION: For diagnostic purposes, cancer patients can be managed similarly in a QDU or in in-hospital settings, but the QDU model seems to incur fewer costs.