Search

One of the characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Italy is the significant regional difference in terms of lethality and mortality. These geographical variances were clear in the first wave and confirmed in the second one as well. The study aimed to analyze the correlation between regional differences in COVID-19 mortality and different regional care models, by retrospectively analyzing the association between the Italian COVID-19 deaths and the number of hospital beds, long-term care facilities, general practitioners (GPs), and the health expenditure per capita. The period considered was from 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021. The number of hospital beds (p < 0.0001) and the number of GPs (p = 0.0094) significantly predicted the COVID-19 death rate. The Italian regions with a higher number of hospital beds and a lower number of GPs showed a higher number of deaths. Multivariate analyses confirmed the results. The Italian regions with a higher amount of centralized healthcare, as represented by the number of hospital beds, experienced a higher number of deaths, while the regions with greater community support, as exemplified by the number of the GPs, faced higher survival. These results suggest the need for a change in the current healthcare system organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There has been a growing interest in using diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payment to reimburse inpatient care worldwide. But its effects on healthcare and health outcomes are controversial, and the evidence from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is especially scarce. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in China. Method A systematic review was conducted. We searched literature databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed for empirical studies examining the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare in mainland China. We performed a narrative synthesis of outcomes regarding expenditure, efficiency, quality and equity of healthcare, and assessed the quality of evidence. Results Twenty-three publications representing thirteen DRGs payment studies were included, including six controlled before after studies, two interrupted time series studies and five uncontrolled before-after studies. All studies compared DRGs payment to fee-for-service, with or without an overall budget, in settings of tertiary (7), secondary (7) and primary care (1). The involved participants varied from specific groups to all inpatients. DRGs payment mildly reduced the length of stay. Impairment of equity of healthcare was consistently reported, especially for patients exempted from DRGs payment, including: patient selection, cost-shifting and inferior quality of healthcare. However, findings on total expenditure, out of pocket payment (OOP) and quality of healthcare were inconsistent. The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low due to the study design and potential risk of bias of included studies. Conclusion DRGs payment may mildly improve the efficiency but impair the equity and quality of healthcare, especially for patients exempted from this payment scheme, and may cause up-coding of medical records. However, DRGs payment may or may not contain the total expenditure or OOP, depending on the components design of the payment. Policymakers should very carefully consider each component of DRGs payment design against policy goals. Well-designed randomised trials or comparative studies are warranted to consolidate the evidence of the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in LMICs to inform policymaking.

Background: There has been a growing interest in using diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payment to reimburse inpatient care worldwide. But its effects on healthcare and health outcomes are controversial, and the evidence from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is especially scarce. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in China.Method: A systematic review was conducted. We searched literature databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed for empirical studies examining the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare in mainland China. We performed a narrative synthesis of outcomes regarding expenditure, efficiency, quality and equity of healthcare, and assessed the quality of evidence.Results: Twenty-three publications representing thirteen DRGs payment studies were included, including six controlled before after studies, two interrupted time series studies and five uncontrolled before-after studies. All studies compared DRGs payment to fee-for-service, with or without an overall budget, in settings of tertiary (7), secondary (7) and primary care (1). The involved participants varied from specific groups to all inpatients. DRGs payment mildly reduced the length of stay. Impairment of equity of healthcare was consistently reported, especially for patients exempted from DRGs payment, including: patient selection, cost-shifting and inferior quality of healthcare. However, findings on total expenditure, out of pocket payment (OOP) and quality of healthcare were inconsistent. The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low due to the study design and potential risk of bias of included studies.Conclusion: DRGs payment may mildly improve the efficiency but impair the equity and quality of healthcare, especially for patients exempted from this payment scheme, and may cause up-coding of medical records. However, DRGs payment may or may not contain the total expenditure or OOP, depending on the components design of the payment. Policymakers should very carefully consider each component of DRGs payment design against policy goals. Well-designed randomised trials or comparative studies are warranted to consolidate the evidence of the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in LMICs to inform policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Customer relationship management (CRM) is significant for hospital services as it has been for any other businesses. A hospital helps in restoring and maintaining the health of the people. In healthcare facilities, CRM practices are mainly patient focused strategies which involve a combination of patient interaction and management of hospital interface which is effective. A CRM system is an innovative technology which makes the process of acquiring, developing and maintaining relationships with customers more effective and efficient. The benefits of CRM could be improved customer service, reduction in cost and better retention of clients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This applied research paper implements a practical methodology about how to assess and improve patient-centred quality of care in the light of nationwide healthcare quality mandate to disseminate and utilize results for the "most bang for the buck". Patient-centred quality of care risk assessment and management are inseparable aspects of healthcare in a hospital, yet both are frequently overlooked. In the State of Alabama, a 2004 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found substantial dissatisfaction with the quality of healthcare as well as other related national reports and managing insurance companies. The primary author's automated software, Risk-O-Meter (RoM), supported by a simulation analysis to verify the analytical outcomes, will provide a patient-centred metric of hospital health-care risk, and risk mitigation advice for vulnerabilities and threats associated with automated management of healthcare quality in a hospital or clinic. The RoM will be demonstrated to assess and enhance quality in the case of an ambulatory or non-ambulatory patient seeking healthcare at local hospitals. The Risk of Service (RoS) metric out of a 100% will be followed up by a remedial cost-optimized game-theoretic analysis about how to mitigate an undesirable risk to a tolerable level by determining what first priority precautions to be taken. The primary goal of this survey paper is to evaluate a random sample of 15 subjects' questionnaires from various corners of the State of Alabama so as to indicate the practical applicability of this software with tangible results. These questionnaires have been examined by the RoM automated software algorithm resulting with conclusive risk measures and what to do toward a cost-effective risk mitigation and remedial action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]