Health Technology Disinvestment in Singapore.

Healthcare decision-makers are constantly challenged by growing healthcare needs in tandem with rising healthcare costs. Disinvesting in technologies and practices that are "low in value" is one strategy to re-allocate limited resources to the most effective, safe and cost-effective technologies. We put forward a health technology reassessment framework and examined the opportunities and challenges on technology disinvestment in Singapore and deliberated on possible solutions. We coordinated and supported a disinvestment programme in 2 hospitals, 1 specialist centre and 9 primary care institutions in the public healthcare sector. The key processes were identifying, prioritising and assessing low-value health technologies and practices, disseminating and implementing disinvestment recommendations, and post-implementation evaluation. Through case studies, we explored the barriers and enablers to the success of the programme. One of the barriers to disinvestment included difficulty in demonstrating a lack of benefit of in-use technologies from published studies. Differing viewpoint and priority might preclude a healthcare leader's support in such initiatives and that posed an unsurmountable hurdle. On the other hand, engaging the stakeholder throughout the evidence review process and striking a balance between rigour and timeliness of review were likely to assure success. Lastly, monitoring the impact on resources and patient outcomes can be diverse and methods need to be developed. Understanding barriers and enablers in health technology disinvestment can translate into improved opportunities for eliminating and minimising resource wastage.

A multicenter, multidisciplinary, high-alert medication collaborative to improve patient safety: the Singapore experience.

BACKGROUND: High-alert medications can cause significant patient harm when used in error. A multicenter, multidisciplinary, high-alert medication collaborative was established in Singapore in 2009 to identify and maintain a current list of high-alert medications and to create systematic approaches for preventing and reducing the risk of medication errors and adverse drug events (ADEs) for high-alert medications. METHODS: The collaborative was led by a core multidisciplinary team consisting of pharmacists, nurses, and physicians, as well as clinical services and quality personnel, from six primary and acute care institutions. Multidisciplinary work groups were formed to drive the improvement efforts using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Tracking of improvement work was conducted with an adaptation of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Trigger Tool method. RESULTS: A localized high-alert medication list was developed through local ADE reports, literature review, an online survey of health care professionals, and expert opinion. Some 130 interventions were proposed to prevent, detect, and mitigate harm from the use of high-alert medications for 10 drug classes/drugs. A significant number of these interventions were tested and revised during the PDSA cycles before implementation throughout the institution and subsequent spread to other institutions. Outcome audits identified areas for improvement. The interventions, which were subsequently incorporated into the change packages, led to a 50% and 67% decline in the ADE rates for radiocontrast agents and heparin, respectively. CONCLUSION: The collaborative has provided a sound framework for ongoing development and refinement of high-alert medication change packages and for sharing of ADE data and best practices across the participating institutions.

Nonconcordance with surgical site infection prevention guidelines and rates of surgical site infections for general surgical, neurological, and orthopedic procedures.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common and preventable complication of surgery, but the relative importance of individual measures recommended by guidelines has not been determined. Elective general surgical, neurological, and orthopedic procedures requiring antibiotic prophylaxis from a 3-month period were retrospectively studied to determine concordance with SSI prevention guidelines and to identify factors which predicted the development of SSIs. A total of 216 surgeries were reviewed, with 18 SSIs (8.3%). A mean of 1.4 antibiotic prophylaxis errors per surgery were identified, with correct antibiotic type identified for 64%, antibiotic timing for 83%, supplemental antibiotic dosing for 34%, and antibiotic duration of less than 24 h for 44%. Normothermia was present in 79% of surgeries, and normoglycemia was present in 17%. Univariate analysis of the SSI rate identified four significant factors. Antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 24 h postoperatively (odds ratio [OR], 0.213; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]0.060 to 0.757) and neurosurgery (OR, 0.118; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.903) correlated with a reduced risk of SSI. The mean number of prophylaxis errors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.4) and a duration of surgical drainage for more than 3 days (OR, 2.679; 95% CI, 1.009 to 7.113) predicted SSI. By multivariate analysis, errors in individual antibiotic prophylaxis measures were not significantly associated with SSI; however, the presence of more than two errors was significant (OR, 4.030; 95% CI, 1.018 to 15.96). A strong correlation was identified between the degree of concordance to SSI prevention guidelines and the SSI rate (P = 0.001, Mantel-Haenszel linear-by-linear association chi-square test).