Hospital referrals of patients with acute poisoning by the Belgian Poison Centre: analysis of characteristics, associated factors, compliance and costs.

OBJECTIVE: Aims were (1) to assess the characteristics, associated factors and compliance of patients with acute poisoning advised by the Belgian Poison Centre (BPC) to go (conditionally) to the hospital, (2) to assess the compliance and potential health-economic impact. METHODS: Three types of referrals to the hospital of patients who called the BPC between 1 January and 30 June 2018 were analysed: referrals in case of deterioration in the patient's condition (Hosp-watchful-wait), referrals (Hosp-referral) or urgent referrals (Hosp-urgent-referral). Factors associated with type of recommendation were registered. A survey was conducted on a second dataset of patients who called the BPC between 1 March and 15 May 2019 and referred (conditionally) to the hospital. RESULTS: 5476 referrals were included: 72.4% accidental poisoning, 25.3% intentional self-harm, 1.2% substance abuse and 1.1% unclear intentionality. There were 2368 (43.2%) Hosp-watchful-wait cases, 2677 (48.9%) Hosp-referrals and 431 (7.9%) Hosp-urgent-referrals. In Hosp-watchful-wait cases, soaps and detergents were represented most (20.5%). In Hosp-referrals and Hosp-urgent-referrals, benzodiazepines (12.7% and 15.1%, respectively) predominated. Factors associated with hospitalisation type were number of symptoms, intentionality, type of agent(s) involved and advising antidotes. The survey showed that 7.8% of Hosp-watchful-wait patients went to the hospital versus 57.3% of Hosp-referrals and 59.6% of Hosp-urgent-referrals. The mean cost for Hosp-watchful-wait patients, Hosp-referrals and Hosp-urgent-referrals was estimated at €127, €767 and €796, respectively. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients followed the advice of the BPC to go (conditionally) to the hospital. A systematic follow-up of cases is warranted to examine the appropriateness of referrals and the compliance of patients.

Adults with acute poisoning admitted to a university hospital in Belgium in 2017: cost analysis benchmarked with national data.

Objective: Aims were to (1) analyse the direct cost charged by a university hospital to the government and the patient in case of an admission for acute poisoning, (2) identify the factors associated with the cost, and (3) compare the cost in the hospital studied with national data from the government.Methods: Patient records and invoices of all poisoning-related episodes of patients 14 years or older admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) of Ghent University Hospital (GUH) in 2017 were analysed. A generalised linear model with gamma loglink was applied to assess the variables associated with the cost. Our GUH data collected in 2017 were compared with national data 2016 for all Belgian hospitals on the one hand, and for the subgroup of GUH 2016 data on the other hand. To do this, we used data provided by the Technical Unit of the Federal Public Service Health, containing All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups 812 (poisoning by medicinal agents) and 816 (toxic effects by non-medicinal substances).Results: The total direct cost for the treatment of 1,175 poisoned patients amounted to $1,830,870. Median direct cost per patient was $512 per episode, with $199 for ambulatory patients, $1,575 for patients admitted to the ED-observation-unit, $3,398 for hospitalised patients and $4,859 for patients treated in the intensive care unit. Factors associated with the cost were gender, degree of severity, type of hospitalisation, intentionality, and involvement of ethanol, paracetamol, antidepressants or amphetamines. Median hospitalisation cost per admission in GUH for medicinal agents was 70.5% higher than the cost reported in national hospitalisation data. Median cost per admission in case of non-medicinal agents was 54.5% higher than the national median 2016.Conclusion: The type of hospitalisation has a high impact on the cost, a.o. primarily due to the length of hospital stay, with accommodation accounting for a large proportion of the costs. It is important to benchmark individual hospital data with (inter)national data to evaluate its own cost management in the context of continuous improvement.

Characteristics and costs in adults with acute poisoning admitted to the emergency department of a university hospital in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the characteristics of all acute poisoning admissions among adult emergency department (ED) patients, to identify factors associated with admission and to calculate direct medical cost. METHODS: Data of 2017 (1st January to 31st December) were collected and analyzed retrospectively using patients' medical records and hospital invoices. Factors associated with type of hospitalization were identified using appropriate statistics. RESULTS: A total of 1,214 hospital admissions were included, accounting for 3.6% of all ED admissions. Men (62.2%) and the age group 21-40 years (43.0%) accounted for the largest proportion. Substances most commonly involved were ethanol (52.9%), benzodiazepines (9.7%), cocaine (4.9%), cannabis (4.6%), antidepressants (4.6%) and psychostimulants (4.6%). A total of 4,561 treatment acts were recorded, most commonly monitoring of vital signs (63.6%) and medication and/or intravenous drip administration (62.9%). Patients were discharged home after having received care in the emergency department (ED-amb) in 54.5% of admissions, were admitted to the emergency-department-24-hours-observation unit (ED-24h) or were hospitalized (Hosp) in 24.6% and 20.9% of admissions, respectively. Factors found to be associated with hospitalization type were age, hour of admission, victim location, degree of severity, use of antidotes, involvement of antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, benzodiazepines and ethanol. Total cost was €1,512,346 with an average of €1,287 per admission. CONCLUSION: Poisonings entail a considerable percentage of patients admitted to an ED and financial burden. In particular, ethanol poisonings account for the largest proportion of all ED admissions. Comparison of our figures with other data is hampered by the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria. Availability of a uniform template would facilitate comparison and allow better monitoring policies for prevention and cost reduction.

Belgian Poison Centre impact on healthcare expenses of unintentional poisonings: a cost-benefit analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the impact of the Belgian Poison Centre (BPC) on national healthcare expenses for calls from the public for unintentional poisonings. METHODS: The probability of either calling the BPC, consulting a general practitioner (GP) or consulting an emergency department (ED) was examined in a telephone survey (February-March 2016). Callers were asked what they would have done in case of unavailability of the BPC. The proportion and cost for ED-ambulatory care, ED 24-h observation or hospitalisation were calculated from individual invoices. A cost-benefit analysis was performed. RESULTS: Unintentional cases (n = 485) from 1045 calls to the BPC were included. After having called the BPC, 92.1% did not seek further medical help, 4.2% consulted a GP and 3.7% went to an ED. In the absence of the BPC, 13.8% would not have sought any further help, 49.3% would have consulted a GP and 36.9% would have gone to the hospital. The cost-benefit ratio of the availability of the BPC as versus its absence was estimated at 5.70. CONCLUSIONS: Financial savings can be made if people first call the BPC for unintentional poisonings.