Search

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.

Background Quick diagnosis units (QDUs) are a promising alternative to conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of suspected serious diseases, most commonly cancer and severe anemia. Although QDUs are as effective as hospitalization in reaching a timely diagnosis, a full economic evaluation comparing both approaches has not been reported. Aims To evaluate the costs of QDU vs. conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of cancer and anemia using a cost-minimization analysis on the proven assumption that health outcomes of both approaches were equivalent. Methods Patients referred to the QDU of Bellvitge University Hospital of Barcelona over 51 months with a final diagnosis of severe anemia (unrelated to malignancy), lymphoma, and lung cancer were compared with patients hospitalized for workup with the same diagnoses. The total cost per patient until diagnosis was analyzed. Direct and non-direct costs of QDU and hospitalization were compared. Results Time to diagnosis in QDU patients (n = 195) and length-of-stay in hospitalized patients (n = 237) were equivalent. There were considerable costs savings from hospitalization. Highest savings for the three groups were related to fixed direct costs of hospital stays (66% of total savings). Savings related to fixed non-direct costs of structural and general functioning were 33% of total savings. Savings related to variable direct costs of investigations were 1% of total savings. Overall savings from hospitalization of all patients were €867,719.31. Conclusion QDUs appear to be a cost-effective resource for avoiding unnecessary hospitalization in patients with anemia and cancer. Internists, hospital executives, and healthcare authorities should consider establishing this model elsewhere.

Background Although hospital-based outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDU) are an increasingly recognized cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, patient perception of their quality of care has not been evaluated well enough. This cross-sectional study analyzed the perceived quality of care of a QDU of a public third-level university hospital in Barcelona. Methods One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years attending the QDU over a 9-month period were invited to participate. A validated questionnaire distributed by the QDU attending physician and completed at the end of the first and last QDU visit evaluated perceived quality of care using six subscales. Results Response rate was 98 %. Perceived care in all subscales was high. Waiting times were rated as ‘short’/’very short’ or ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 69–89 % of respondents and physical environment as ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 94–96 %. As to accessibility, only 3 % reported not finding the Unit easily and 7 % said that frequent travels to hospital for visits and investigations were uncomfortable. Perception of patient–physician encounter was high, with 90–94 % choosing the positive extreme ends of the clinical information and personal interaction subscales items. Mean score of willingness to recommend the Unit using an analogue scale where 0 was ‘never’ and 10 ‘without a doubt’ was 9.5 (0.70). On multivariate linear regression, age >65 years was an independent predictor of clinical information, personal interaction, and recommendation, while age 18–44 years was associated with lower scores in these subscales. No schooling predicted higher clinical information and recommendation scores, while university education had remarkable negative influence on them. Having ≥4 QDU visits was associated with lower time to diagnosis and recommendation scores and malignancy was a negative predictor of time to diagnosis, clinical information, and recommendation. Discussion It is worthy of note that the questionnaire evaluated patient perception and opinions of healthcare quality including recommendation rather than simply satisfaction. It has been argued that perception of quality of care is a more valuable approach than satisfaction. In addition to embracing an affective dimension, satisfaction appears more dependent on patient expectations than is perception of quality. Conclusions While appreciating that completing the questionnaire immediately after the visit and its distribution by the QDU physician may have affected the results, scores of perceived quality of care including recommendation were high. There were, however, significant differences in several subscales associated with age, education, number of QDU visits, and diagnosis of malignant vs. benign condition. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

White coat effect (WCE) is one of the main bias that can affect office blood pressure (BP) measurement. Therefore, it is a factor must be considered in hypertensives to avoid mistakes in diagnosis and/or treatment. Employment of automated office BP (AOBP) devices could diminish that effect.Two studies were designed with the objective of evaluating differences between routinely office and AOBP measurements. WCE was also assessed. First, the TRUE-ESP study included normotensive and hypertensive patients attending specialized consultations at Cardiology, Nephrology, Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Family Practice. Second, the TRUE-HTA study included hypertensives attending a protocoled Hypertension Unit, with a trained staff.TRUE-ESP study included 300 patients, 76% being hypertensives. A significant difference between office BP and AOBP measurement (SBP/DBP 9.8±11.6/3.4±7.9 mmHg, P.001) was observed. Percentage of patients gathering WCE criteria was 27.7%. TRUE-HTA study included 101 hypertensive patients. A significant difference between office BP and AOBP measurement (SBP/DBP 5.7±9.3/2.1±5.3 mmHg, P.001) and activity period-ABPM (SBP/DBP 8.5±6.7/3.5±2.5 mmHg, P.001) was observed. Percentage of WCE patients was 32.1%.Use of AOBP devices can contribute to decrease WCE and to improve accuracy of office BP measurement.

Introduction: Reports indicate that a significant number of patients admitted to internal medicine units could be studied on an outpatient basis. Objectives: This article assesses a quick diagnosis unit (QDU) as an alternative to acute hospitalization for the diagnostic study of patients with potentially serious diseases and suspected malignancy. Patients and methods: Between March 2008 and June 2012, 1226 patients were attended by the QDU. Patients were referred from the emergency department, primary health care centers, and outpatient clinics according to well‑defined criteria. Clinical information was prospectively registered in a database. Results: There were 634 men (51.7%), with a mean age of 60.5 ±17.5 years. The mean time to the first visit was 3.5 ±5.3 days. Most patients (65.7%) required only 2 visits. The mean interval to diagnosis was 12.2 ±14.7 days. A total of 324 patients (26.4%) had cancer. The diagnosis was solid tumor in 81.5% of the cases, lymphoma in 19.8%, and various hematologic malignancies in 4.3%. The second most common diagnosis was anemia not associated with cancer (8.6% of the cases). Admission to the QDU allowed to avoid conventional hospitalization for diagnostic studies in 71.5% of the patients, representing a mean freeing‑up rate of 7 internal medicine beds per day. In a satisfaction survey, 97% of the patients were completely or very satisfied and 96% preferred the QDU to conventional hospitalization. Conclusions: A QDU may be a feasible alternative to conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of otherwise healthy patients with suspected severe disease. Appropriately managed and supported, QDUs can lighten the burden of emergency departments and reduce the need for hospitals beds. info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion