The economic impact of periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasty

© 2020 Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the third leading cause of total hip arthroplasty (THA) failure. Although controversial, 2-stage revision remains the gold standard treatment for PJI in most situations. To date, there have been few studies describing the economic impact of PJI in today\u27s health care environment. The purpose of the current study was to obtain an accurate estimate of the institutional cost associated with the management of PJI in THA and to assess the economic burden of PJI compared with primary uncomplicated THA. Methods: We conducted a review of primary THA cases and 2-stage revision THA for PJI at our institution. Patients were matched for age and body mass index. All costs associated with each procedure were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the collected data. Mean costs, length of stay, clinic visits and readmission rates associated with the 2 cohorts were compared. Results: Fifty consecutive cases of revision THA were matched with 50 cases of uncomplicated primary THA between 2006 and 2014. Compared with the primary THA cohort, PJI was associated with a significant increase in mean length of hospital stay (26.5 v. 2.0 d, p \u3c 0.001), mean number of clinic visits (9.2 v. 3.8, p \u3c 0.001), number of readmissions (12 v. 1, p \u3c 0.001) and average overall cost (Can$38 107 v. Can$6764, t = 8.3, p \u3c 0.001). Conclusion: Treatment of PJI is a tremendous economic burden. Our data suggest a 5-fold increase in hospital expenditure in the management of PJI compared with primary uncomplicated THA

Rethinking the Hanford Tank Waste Program

The program to treat and dispose of the highly radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford site has been studied. A strategy/management approach to achieve an acceptable (technically sound) end state for these wastes has been developed in this study. This approach is based on assessment of the actual risks and costs to the public, workers, and the environment associated with the wastes and storage tanks. Close attention should be given to the technical merits of available waste treatment and stabilization methodologies, and application of realistic risk reduction goals and methodologies to establish appropriate tank farm cleanup milestones. Increased research and development to reduce the mass of non-radioactive materials in the tanks requiring sophisticated treatment is highly desirable. The actual cleanup activities and milestones, while maintaining acceptable safety standards, could be more focused on a risk-to-benefit cost effectiveness, as agreed to by the involved stakeholders and in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. If existing safety standards can be maintained at significant cost savings under alternative plans but with a change in the Tri-Party Agreement (a regulatory requirement), those plans should be carried out. The proposed strategy would also take advantage of the lessons learned from the activities and efforts in the first phase of the two-phased cleanup of the Hanford waste tank farms

Quality of medication use in primary care - mapping the problem, working to a solution: a systematic review of the literature

Background: The UK, USA and the World Health Organization have identified improved patient safety in healthcare as a priority. Medication error has been identified as one of the most frequent forms of medical error and is associated with significant medical harm. Errors are the result of the systems that produce them. In industrial settings, a range of systematic techniques have been designed to reduce error and waste. The first stage of these processes is to map out the whole system and its reliability at each stage. However, to date, studies of medication error and solutions have concentrated on individual parts of the whole system. In this paper we wished to conduct a systematic review of the literature, in order to map out the medication system with its associated errors and failures in quality, to assess the strength of the evidence and to use approaches from quality management to identify ways in which the system could be made safer. Methods: We mapped out the medicines management system in primary care in the UK. We conducted a systematic literature review in order to refine our map of the system and to establish the quality of the research and reliability of the system. Results: The map demonstrated that the proportion of errors in the management system for medicines in primary care is very high. Several stages of the process had error rates of 50% or more: repeat prescribing reviews, interface prescribing and communication and patient adherence. When including the efficacy of the medicine in the system, the available evidence suggested that only between 4% and 21% of patients achieved the optimum benefit from their medication. Whilst there were some limitations in the evidence base, including the error rate measurement and the sampling strategies employed, there was sufficient information to indicate the ways in which the system could be improved, using management approaches. The first step to improving the overall quality would be routine monitoring of adherence, clinical effectiveness and hospital admissions. Conclusion: By adopting the whole system approach from a management perspective we have found where failures in quality occur in medication use in primary care in the UK, and where weaknesses occur in the associated evidence base. Quality management approaches have allowed us to develop a coherent change and research agenda in order to tackle these, so far, fairly intractable problems