A comparative analysis of intravenous infusion methods for low-resource environments.

Introduction: Intravenous (IV) therapy is a crucial aspect of care for the critically ill patient. Barriers to IV infusion pumps in low-resource settings include high costs, lack of access to electricity, and insufficient technical support. Inaccuracy of traditional drop-counting practices places patients at risk. By conducting a comparative assessment of IV infusion methods, we analyzed the efficacy of different devices and identified one that most effectively bridges the gap between accuracy, cost, and electricity reliance in low-resource environments. Methods: In this prospective mixed methods study, nurses, residents, and medical students used drop counting, a manual flow regulator, an infusion pump, a DripAssist, and a DripAssist with manual flow regulator to collect normal saline at goal rates of 240, 120, and 60 mL/h. Participants' station setup time was recorded, and the amount of fluid collected in 10 min was recorded (in milliliters). Participants then filled out a post-trial survey to rate each method (on a scale of 1 to 5) in terms of understandability, time consumption, and operability. Cost-effectiveness for use in low-resource settings was also evaluated. Results: The manual flow regulator had the fastest setup time, was the most cost effective, and was rated as the least time consuming to use and the easiest to understand and operate. In contrast, the combination of the DripAssist and manual flow regulator was the most time consuming to use and the hardest to understand and operate. Conclusion: The manual flow regulator alone was the least time consuming and easiest to operate. The DripAssist/Manual flow regulator combination increases accuracy, but this combination was the most difficult to operate. In addition, the manual flow regulator was the most cost-effective. Healthcare providers can adapt these devices to their practice environments and improve the safety of rate-sensitive IV medications without significant strain on electricity, time, or personnel resources.

Unplanned 30-Day readmission rates after spine surgery in a community-based Hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE: Unplanned readmissions after spinal surgery adversely affect not only healthcare costs but also the quality of delivered care. The primary objective of this study was to identify the rates and predicting factors of unplanned 30-day readmissions at a community-based hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a single-center community-based hospital administrative and clinical records identifying unplanned readmissions. Risk factors for readmissions due to surgical site infections, pain, medical vs. procedure-related complications, and the number of readmissions were studied using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total overall readmission rate was 7.3 % (79 readmissions for 1077 patients). The readmission rates for thoracolumbar and cervical surgeries were 5.5 % and 1.8 %, respectively. The mean duration to primary readmission was 11.4 + 8.5 days. The most common procedure-related complication diagnosed at readmittance was wound-related complications (26 readmissions, 32.9 %). The most common non-surgical complication was a drug reaction or overdose (10.1 %). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that longer hospitalization was a highly significant predictor of wound-related complications, followed by discharge to home or home care, and lower ASA scores (all <0.048). A younger age predicted readmissions due to pain (p = 0.014) and longer OR time did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.079). Higher ASA scores predicted readmissions due to medical vs. surgical complications (p = 0.028). There were no statistically significant predictors identified for more than one readmission during the 30-day post-discharge period. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of 30-day unplanned readmissions at a community-based hospital was 7.3 % for patients undergoing spinal surgeries and was similar to the rates reported by larger academic tertiary care institutions and registry-based studies. The study suggests that surgical site infections was the most common reason for readmissions, which was predictive by longer hospitalization, discharge disposition, and lower ASA scores.