Alarm burden and the nursing care environment: a 213-hospital cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: High rates of medical device alarms in hospitals are a well-documented threat to patient safety. Little is known about organisational features that may be associated with nurses' experience of alarm burden. AIMS: To evaluate the association between nurse-reported alarm burden, appraisals of patient safety, quality of care and hospital characteristics. METHODS: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data from 3986 hospital-based direct-care registered nurses in 213 acute care hospitals in New York and Illinois, USA. We evaluated associations of alarm burden with appraisals of patient safety and quality of care and hospital characteristics (work environment, staffing adequacy, size, teaching status) using χ2 tests. RESULTS: The majority of respondents reported feeling overwhelmed by alarms (83%), delaying their response to alarms because they were unable to step away from another patient/task (76%), and experiencing situations where a patient needed urgent attention but no one responded to an alarm (55%). Nurses on medical-surgical units reported these experiences at higher rates than nurses working in intensive care units (p<0.001). Alarm burden items were significantly associated with poorer nurse-reported patient safety, quality of care, staffing and work environment. Findings were most pronounced for situations where a patient needed urgent attention but no one responded to the alarm, which was frequently/occasionally experienced by 72% of those who rated their hospital's safety as poor versus 38% good, p<0.001; 80% who rated overall quality of care poor/fair versus 46% good/excellent, p<0.001 and 65% from poor work environments versus 42% from good work environments, p<0.001. CONCLUSION: Most nurses reported feeling overwhelmed by medical device alarms, and our findings suggest that alarm burden may be more pronounced in hospitals with unfavourable working conditions and suboptimal quality and safety. Because this was a cross-sectional study, further research is needed to explore causal relationships and the role of modifiable systems factors in reducing alarm burden.

Preimplantation genetic testing for sickle cell disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (IVF + PGT-M) in the conception of a nonsickle cell disease (non-SCD) individual compared with standard of care treatment for a naturally conceived, sickle cell disease (SCD)-affected individual. Design: A Markov simulation model was constructed to evaluate a one-time IVF + PGT-M treatment compared with the lifetime standard of care costs of treatment for an individual potentially born with SCD. Using an annual discount rate of 3% for cost and outcome measures, quality-adjusted life years were constructed from utility weights and life expectancy values and then used as the effectiveness measurement. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both treatment arms, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year was assumed. Setting: Tertiary care or university medical center. Patients: A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients was analzyed over a lifetime horizon using yearly cycles. Interventions: In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease use in conception of a non-SCD individual. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes of interest were the incremental cost and effectiveness of an IVF+PGT-M conception compared with the SOC treatment of an SCD-affected individual. Results: In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease was the optimal strategy in 93.17% of the iterations. An incremental savings of $137,594 was demonstrated with a gain of 1.96 QALYs and 3.69 life years over a lifetime. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that SOC treatment never met equivalent cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Our model demonstrates that IVF + PGT-M for selection against SCD, compared with lifetime SOC treatment for those affected, is the most cost-effective strategy within the United States healthcare sector.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, building on androgen deprivation therapy alone. These include docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel. There are no validated predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific regimen. The goal of this study was to conduct a health economic outcome evaluation to determine the optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs). METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model in which metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients transitioned between 3 health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (7208 patients). The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost input parameters included initial and subsequent treatment costs and costs for terminal care and for managing grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature. RESULTS: Average 10-year costs ranged from $34 349 (androgen deprivation therapy) to $658 928 (darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (androgen deprivation therapy) to 4.57 (enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy). Treatment strategies docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy docetaxel, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, and darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy were eliminated because of dominance (ie, they were more costly and less effective than other strategies). Of the remaining strategies, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = $21 247/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation model found abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy to be an optimal first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from a public (Veterans Affairs) payer perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective.

PURPOSE: Several new treatment combinations have been approved in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To determine the optimal therapy on the basis of cost and health outcomes, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of approved immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor/immunotherapy drug combinations and sunitinib using public payer acquisition costs in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a decision model with a 10-year time horizon. The seven treatment drug strategies included atezolizumab + bevacizumab, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), nivolumab + cabozantinib, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, and sunitinib. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values on the basis of the published literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs and costs for management of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. We used a partitioned survival model in which patients with mRCC transitioned between three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) at monthly intervals on the basis of parametric survival function estimated from published survival curves. To determine cost-effectiveness, we constructed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness between nondominated treatments. RESULTS: The least expensive treatment was sunitinib ($357,948 US dollars [USD]-$656,100 USD), whereas the most expensive was either lenvatinib + pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab + axitinib ($959,302 USD-$1,403,671 USD). NI yielded the most QALYs (3.6), whereas avelumab + axitinib yielded the least (2.5). NI had an incremental ICER of $297,465 USD-$348,516 USD compared with sunitinib. In sensitivity analyses, this ICER fell below $150,000 USD/QALY if the initial 4-month cost of NI decreased by 22%-38%. CONCLUSION: NI was the most effective combination for mRCC, but at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 USD/QALY, sunitinib was the most cost-effective approach.