Cost savings through continuous vital sign monitoring in the medical-surgical unit.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the potential cost-savings for implementing continuous vital sign monitoring in a hospital's medical-surgical units. METHODS: A cost-savings analysis was designed to calculate potential cost-savings for an average-sized U.S. community hospital (153 total beds) over a 1-year time horizon. Analysis parameters were extracted from national databases and previous studies that compared outcomes for patients receiving continuous vital sign monitoring (SpO2, HR, and RR) or standard of care (intermittent vital sign measurements) in medical-surgical units based on a targeted literature review. Clinical parameters and associated costs served as analysis inputs. The analysis outputs were costs and potential cost-savings using a 50% and 100% adoption rate of continuous monitoring technologies across the medical-surgical unit. RESULTS: Potential annual cost-savings for in-hospital medical-surgical stays were estimated at $3,414,709 (2022 USD) and $6,829,418 for a 50% and 100% adoption rate, respectively. The cost-savings for an adoption rate of 100% equated to a ∼14% reduction in the overall annual cost of medical-surgical unit stays for an average-sized hospital. The largest contribution to potential cost-savings came from patients that avoided serious adverse events that require transfer to the intensive care unit; this resulted in annual cost-savings from reduced average length of stay between $1,756,613 and $3,513,226 (50% and 100% adoption rate, respectively). Additional cost-savings can be attained from reductions in in-hospital cardiac arrest-associated hospitalizations and decreased rapid response team activation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that there is the potential for cost-savings of over $6.8 million dollars per year in an average-sized US community hospital by improving patient outcomes through implementation of continuous monitoring technologies in medical-surgical units. Continuous vital sign monitoring technologies that increase patient mobility and facilitate recovery may further contribute to cost-savings and should be considered for economic analyses. Future research is needed to explore these health-related outcomes.

Risk factors for cardiopulmonary and respiratory arrest in medical and surgical hospital patients on opioid analgesics and sedatives.

BACKGROUND: Opioid induced respiratory depression is a known cause of preventable death in hospitals. Medications with sedative properties additionally potentiate opioid-induced respiratory and sedative effects, thereby elevating the risk for adverse events. The goal of this study was to determine what specific factors increase the risk of in-hospital cardiopulmonary and respiratory arrest (CPRA) in medical and surgical patients on opioid and sedative therapy. METHODS: The present study analyzed 14,504,809 medical inpatient and 6,771,882 surgical inpatient discharges reported into the Premier database from 2008 to 2012. Patients were divided in four categories: on opioids; on sedatives; on both opioids and sedatives; and on neither opioids nor sedatives. RESULTS: During hospital admission, 57% of all medical patients and 90% of all surgical patients were prescribed opioids, sedatives, or both. Surgical patients had a higher incidence of CPRA than medical patients (6.17 vs. 3.77 events per 1000 admissions; Relative Risk: 1.64 [95%CI: 1.62-1.66; p<0.0001). Opioids and sedatives were found to be independent predictors of CPRA (adjusted OR of 2.24 [95%CI: 2.18-2.29] for opioids and adjusted OR 1.80 [95%CI: 1.75-1.85] for sedatives in medical patients, and adjusted OR of 1.12 [95%CI: 1.07-1.16] for opioids and adjusted OR of 1.58 [95%CI: 1.51-1.66] for sedatives in surgical patients), with the highest risk in groups who received both types of medications (adjusted OR of 3.83 [95% CI: 3.74-3.92] in medical patients, and adjusted OR of 2.34 [95% CI: 2.25-2.42] in surgical patients) compared with groups that received neither type of medication. The common risk factors of CPRA in medical and surgical patients receiving both opioids and sedatives were Hispanic origin, mild liver disease, obesity, and COPD. Additionally, medical and surgical groups had their own unique risk factors for CPRA when placed on opioid and sedative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids and sedatives are independent and additive predictors of CPRA in both medical and surgical patients. Receiving both classes of medications further exacerbates the risk of CPRA for these patients. By identifying groups at risk among medical and surgical in-hospital patients, this study provides a step towards improving our understanding of how to use opioid and sedative medications safely, which may influence our treatment strategies and outcomes. More precise monitoring of selected high-risk patients may help prevent catastrophic cardiorespiratory complications from these medications. As a retrospective administrative database analysis, this study does not establish the causality or the temporality of the events but rather draws statistically significant associations between the clinical factors and outcomes.

Modeling the costs and benefits of capnography monitoring during procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The addition of capnography to procedural sedation/analgesia (PSA) guidelines has been controversial due to limited evidence of clinical utility in moderate PSA and cost concerns. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive model of PSA during gastrointestinal endoscopy was developed to capture adverse events (AEs), guideline interventions, outcomes, and costs. Randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies were used to inform the model. The model compared outcomes using pulse oximetry alone with pulse oximetry plus capnography. Pulse oximetry was assumed at no cost, whereas capnography cost USD 4,000 per monitor. AE costs were obtained from literature review and Premier database analysis. The model population (n = 8,000) had mean characteristics of age 55.5 years, body mass index 26.2 kg/m(2), and 45.3 % male. RESULTS: The addition of capnography resulted in a 27.2 % and 18.0 % reduction in the proportion of patients experiencing an AE during deep and moderate PSA, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated significant reductions in apnea and desaturation with capnography. The median (95 % credible interval) number needed to treat to avoid any adverse event was 8 (2; 72) for deep and 6 (-59; 92) for moderate. Reduced AEs resulted in cost savings that accounted for the additional upfront purchase cost. Capnography was estimated to reduce the cost per procedure by USD 85 (deep) or USD 35 (moderate). CONCLUSIONS: Capnography is estimated to be cost-effective if not cost saving during PSA for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Savings were driven by improved patient safety, suggesting that capnography may have an important role in the safe provision of PSA.

Association of Opioids and Sedatives with Increased Risk of In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Arrest from an Administrative Database.

BACKGROUND: While opioid use confers a known risk for respiratory depression, the incremental risk of in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, respiratory arrest, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPRA) has not been studied. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence, outcomes, and risk profile of in-hospital CPRA for patients receiving opioids and medications with central nervous system sedating side effects (sedatives). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult inpatient discharges from 2008-2012 reported in the Premier Database. Patients were grouped into four mutually exclusive categories: (1) opioids and sedatives, (2) opioids only, (3) sedatives only, and (4) neither opioids nor sedatives. RESULTS: Among 21,276,691 inpatient discharges, 53% received opioids with or without sedatives. A total of 96,554 patients suffered CPRA (0.92 per 1000 hospital bed-days). Patients who received opioids and sedatives had an adjusted odds ratio for CPRA of 3.47 (95% CI: 3.40-3.54; p<0.0001) compared with patients not receiving opioids or sedatives. Opioids alone and sedatives alone were associated with a 1.81-fold and a 1.82-fold (p<0.0001 for both) increase in the odds of CPRA, respectively. In opioid patients, locations of CPRA were intensive care (54%), general care floor (25%), and stepdown units (15%). Only 42% of patients survived CPRA and only 22% were discharged home. Opioid patients with CPRA had mean increased hospital lengths of stay of 7.57 days and mean increased total hospital costs of $27,569. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids and sedatives are independent and additive risk factors for in-hospital CPRA. The impact of opioid sparing analgesia, reduced sedative use, and better monitoring on CPRA incidence deserves further study.