Gestión de los servicios de urgencias / Management of emergency services

Los Servicios de Urgencias juegan un papel crítico en todas las comunidades. Las personas que tienen un problema de salud y no saben dónde acudir, suelen escoger las Urgencias como primera fuente de cuidados. Los problemas aparecen cuando el excesivo uso de los servicios de Urgencias acaba derivando en un colapso de los mismos, las Urgencias se saturan y es entonces cuando la calidad de la asistencia y la seguridad del paciente pueden quedar comprometidas. En este artículo se analizan los factores que pueden provocar el mencionado colapso (AU)

The Emergency Services play a critical role in all communities. People who have a health problem and don´t know where to go usually choose the Emergency Department as a first resource for nursing care. The problems appear when the excessive use of the Emergency Services leads to a collapse; they become saturated and this is when the quality of the care and safety of the patient may be jeopardized. This article analyses the factors which may cause such collapses (AU)

[Impact in the quality of health care and cost-effectiveness analysis of the reform of an emergency medicine service]. / Evaluación del impacto en la calidad asistencial y análisis coste-efectividad de la reforma de un servicio de urgencias de medicina.

BACKGROUND: To determine the effects that the reform of an emergency department (ED) have on efficacy, health care quality and efficiency. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Reforms consisted of 50% and 34% increases in structural and human resources, respectively. Roles of each ED member were redetermined, new assistance pathways were implemented, and the relationship between ED and the remaining hospital departments was reassessed. As efficacy markers, we determined the number of patients waiting to be attended (Pesp), the waiting time of patients to receive medical assistance (T(esp)),and the total waiting time of patients staying in the ED (T(total)). As health-care quality markers, we determined the percentage of patients leaving ED without having been visited by a physician(IPNV), the percentage of patients who were visited again (IPR),and the percentage of mortality (IPF). We also quantified the number of visits to the ED. All these data were obtained daily over 3 weeks, before (February 1999) and after (February 2000)the reforms. Effectiveness was estimated from the ratio P(total)/T(esp)(E1) and P(total)/P(esp) (E2). Costs were recorded for both periods and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to study the efficiency. RESULTS: In 2000, the number of visits increased by +12% (CI 95%: 2% to 22%). Despite this increase, we observed an improvement of most efficacy and health-care quality markers after the ED reforms. E1 increased by 996% (CI 95%: 335% to 1,658%) and E2 increased by 186% (CI 95%: -23%to 395%). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed 70% (CI 95%: 33%to 107%) and 56% (CI 95%: 18% to 94%) increases regarding E1 and E2, respectively, after the reforms. CONCLUSIONS: Providing ED with the necessary resources leads to an objective improvement of its efficacy and health-care quality and, consequently, the service and quality perceived by users improve. Despite the total cost increase after the ED reforms, efficiency also improves.

[Vancomycin and teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: pharmacoeconomic study]. / Vancomicina y teicoplanina como profilaxis antibiótica en cirugía cardíaca: estudio farmacoeconómico.

BACKGROUND: To assess the economical impact of vancomycin use versus teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing cardiac surgery for valve replacement (VR) and coronary artery by-pass (CABS) procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an ancillary cost minimization analysis of a double blinded, parallel groups, randomised clinical trial (RCT), with the main objective of comparing the safety and efficacy of these antibiotics. 500 patients were included in the study; 267 in the CABS group and 233 in the VR group. The CABS patients received 1 g vancomicin or 400 mg teicoplanin, plus 150 mg netilmicin. The VR group received a second dose of each drug after extracorporeal circulation. In order to calculate the costs we considered the direct cost of the drug, the i.v. mix and the administration costs, together with personnel and structure costs. We considered two different situations: the administration of drugs within the surgical room theatre and in the medical ward. RESULTS: The demographic data of both groups were comparable. The frequency of severe adverse drug reactions (ADR) were similar (0.4%) in both groups, as well as the post-operative infection rates (8.6%). Differences were seen in the frequencies of low severity ADRs: 20.4% in the vancomycin group and 1.6% in the teicoplanin group. When the antibiotics were administered in the surgical room, among CABS patients the costs were 8,265 pts. for the teicoplanin group and 12,005 pts. for the vancomycin group; while among VR patients, costs were respectively 11,661 pts. and 14,528 pts. Administration costs of teicoplanin and vancomycin within a medical ward setting, however, the costs were 6,740 pts. and 2,809 pts. for CABS patients, and 5,308 pts. and 10,140 pts. for VR patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of antibiotic prophylaxis among cardiac surgery patients heavily depends on the setting and circumstances of drug administration. The minimization cost analysis indicates that teicoplanin is the most cost-effective option if the drug is administered within the surgical area, while vancomycin is the less costly option when administered within the medical ward. However, if the second option is to be chosen, it is necessary to assure the right plasmatic drug levels of the antibiotic at the beginning of the surgical procedure.