Health research and innovation: Can we optimize the interface between startups/pharmaceutical companies and academic health care institutions or not?

Although France has numerous assets in the realm of health care, such as the excellence of its research teams, the reputation of its healthcare system, and the presence of many startups, all of which are necessary to become a leader in innovation, it also has combined cultural and regulatory barriers that limit the flexibility and efficiency of interactions between companies/startups and public health institutions. Therefore, the aim of the roundtable discussion was to optimize the interface between those businesses and institutions. Several institutions have successfully implemented teams and procedures which aim to facilitate this interface, with regard to assessments of technology, services provided, the transfer of biological material, R&D collaboration, and licensing agreements. However, there is still a notable absence of entrepreneurial culture among hospital and academic research practitioners; their training regarding innovation remains insufficient and business-related value-creation is non-existent in their career evolution. Pharmaceutical companies, and particularly startups, often lack knowledge about hospital environments and their constraints. As a result, the recommendations of the roundtable participants are as follows: (1) promote reciprocal acculturation between public health institutions and startups through multidisciplinary training in innovation, promoting project development and staff recognition within the institution, and improving pharmaceutical companies' understanding regarding the health care system; (2) provide those involved with means and resources dedicated to innovation by reserving time for innovation at work, securing the status of the staff involved, and aiding in the search for funding; (3) develop and use standard methodologies and tools; and (4) co-design and co-construct innovative health solutions, encouraging the emergence of participatory and interdisciplinary creative spaces. All of these recommendations should help to make the interface between startups/companies and public health institutions more fluid and attractive for those in the health sector.

Quality of pain management in the emergency department: results of a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain management in a large sample of emergency departments (EDs) and identify potential corrective measures. METHOLOGY: A multicentre prospective study was performed in 50 EDs participating in a national quality improvement programme. The rate of inclusion was determined a priori in each ED. Patients were questioned about their pain and pain intensity was assessed by a visual analogue scale. A bivariate and a multivariate analysis were conducted to identify the criteria associated with inadequate pain management. RESULTS: A total of 11 670 patients were included and 7265 patients reported pain on admission. On arrival, pain intensity was assessed in 90% of patients (44% experienced severe pain). However, reassessments were performed less often (48% on discharge). Fifty-one percent of patients received pain treatment. Intravenous morphine was used in only 9% of patients with severe pain. Initial treatment was provided within 60 min of admission to 74% of patients. Among patients who were assessed on discharge, 27% still had pain (8% with severe pain). Delay for pain management was significantly related to the ED volume, lack of triage nurses, patients' disorders and initial pain intensity. CONCLUSION: This multicentre study conducted on a nationwide scale shows that pain relief can be improved in the ED. Pain intensity is not sufficiently reassessed, analgesics are underutilised, morphine sulfate is rarely used and delay in treatment is common. Reasons for inadequate analgesia were identified in order to identify relevant corrective measures to improve quality of pain management in the ED.

Real association of factors with inappropriate hospital days.

Several studies of inappropriate (in the sense of the AEP) hospital days highlighted associations between two factors (rate of inappropriateness and reasons for inappropriateness, rate of inappropriateness and appropriate setting of care,..). The aim of this communication is to present a study on real associations, at constant factor, between five factors associated with hospital inappropriate days: medical management process, reason for inappropriateness, scheduled admission, rate of inappropriateness, length of stay. We used the European version of Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol for evaluation of inappropriate days and the French protocol ;for analysis of inappropriate days. The study set in three Parisian hospitals, four clinical departments, three specialities. 523 patients were included in the study, 5663 days were evaluated on a wide variety of pathologies: 27 Medical Management Processes. Results show that there are real associations (elimination of transitive associations) between five factors : medical management process and discharge processes, reason for inappropriateness, scheduled admission, rate of inappropriate days, length of stay. Multiple Correspondence Analysis on all "groups of contiguous days related with the same reason for inappropriateness" shows five profiles of queues integrating various medical management processes.