Dataset Information

Calculating the economic burden of presumed microbial keratitis admissions at a tertiary referral centre in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Microbial keratitis (MK) is the most common non-surgical ophthalmic emergency admission in the UK. However, few prospective health-economic studies of MK have been performed, and no specific healthcare resources group (HRG) code exists. This study is designed to determine the feasibility of a data collection tool derived from the microbiology ophthalmology group (MOG) clinical record form, to enable quantification of direct costs of inpatient care, as well as prospective capture of epidemiological data relating to outcomes of MK.

Methods

Clinical, demographic and economic data were collected retrospectively between January and December 2013 for 101 consecutive patients admitted with MK, using an adaption of the MOG toolset. The direct cost of admission (COA) was calculated using national reference costs and compared to actual income to generate profit/deficit profiles for individual patients. Indices of multiple deprivation were used to assess effect of deprivation on the COA.

Results

The total income generated through discharge coding was £252,116, compared to a COA of £357,075, yielding a deficit of £104,960 (median: £754 per patient). The cost deficit increased significantly with length of stay (LOS, p < 0.001), whilst patients with short LOS were income generators; cost neutrality occurred at 4.8 days. Greater socioeconomic deprivation was also associated with a significantly higher cost deficit.

Conclusion

LOS is the key driver for COA of care for MK admissions. Protocols should encourage discharge of patients who are able to self-administer treatment after the sterilisation phase. The MOG-derived data collection toolset captures pertinent clinical data for quantification of COA. Further development into a multiuser and multisite platform is required for robust prospective testing, together with expansion to capture indirect costs of disease burden, including impact of treatment, visual morbidity and quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Moussa G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8302743 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective was to review COVID-19 vaccine allergy advice and guidance requests received and assess the impact of advice outcome on vaccination outcome.DesignA retrospective analysis of requests for advice and guidance regarding COVID-19 vaccine allergy was completed using an electronic referral system from February 2021 to January 2022.ParticipantsA total of 1265 independent patient requests for advice were received from primary care. Full vaccination information was available on 1210 patients who were included in the analysis.Main outcome measuresWe evaluated the specific outcome of request for advice (written advice versus allergy consultation), rate of vaccination, vaccination combinations, and tolerance of vaccination.ResultsOf the 1210 patients included, 959 (79%) were female. Eight hundred and ninety-six (74%) requests were managed with written advice only and of these 675 (75%) patients went on to be vaccinated. Overall, 891 (74%) of the population were vaccinated with 2 or more doses.Two hundred and nineteen patient consultations were undertaken with 109 (50%) prior to the first vaccination. Forty-nine (45%) consultations prior to vaccination were undertaken due to a label of anaphylaxis to vaccination in the past. Vaccination was recommended for all patients, and 78 (72%) of these received a first dose. Eight of these patients (10%) had symptoms within 1 h of vaccine administration.One hundred and ten (50%) consultations were undertaken for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination, with 84 (76%) concerning immediate symptoms. Thirty patients (27%) who had a consultation had had adrenaline administered post vaccination. One patient had biopsy confirmed Stevens Johnson Syndrome and was referred to Dermatology. All others due for further doses (107 patients) were recommended to have subsequent doses with 49 (45%) offered the same vaccine. Eighty-nine patients had a vaccine administered post adverse reaction and 79 (88%) tolerated the dose.Skin testing and challenge to polyethylene glycol were negative in the 8 patients tested.ConclusionsOver 1000 requests for advice and guidance were received during the review period, managed mainly with written advice. The overwhelming majority of requests for advice and consultations were for females, with equal distribution both pre- and post-COVID-19 vaccine administration. Vaccination was recommended in all but 1 patient (with biopsy confirmed Stevens Johnson Syndrome). Polyethylene glycol allergy was not confirmed in any patient, nor did any patient have confirmed anaphylaxis when the vaccine was administered under our supervision, suggesting that type 1 mediated hypersensitivity is uncommon even in this "high risk" population.

Project description:The microbiological profile of infectious keratitis has shown great differences across the world. Due to the continuous shifting trends in microbiological profile and antibiotic resistance patterns reported in several studies, constant local updates are crucial to provide an adequate treatment. The propose of this study was to analyze the incidence of infectious keratitis, possible changing trends in microbiological profile, and bacteria sensitivity to commonly used antibiotics, in our tertiary center, in the last 10 years. A retrospective study was performed, based on the survey review of electronic medical records of all patients with presumed infectious keratitis, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018. Microbial cultures were performed, and patients were treated according to an internal protocol. A total of 1360 samples were included. We obtained a 35.1% culture-positive rate. Bacteria accounted for 76.78% of all positive scrapes (53.34% were Gram positive and 23.44% were Gram negative), Acanthamoeba for 12.13%, fungi for 8.16%, and virus for 2.93%. The most frequent agent identified was Corynebacterium macginleyi (18.41%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (17.78%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.41%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9.00%). We identified at least one ophthalmologic risk factor in 410 patients (85.77%). Trauma and contact lens wear were the most common risk factors found, accounting for 34.94% (n?=?167) and 33.47% (n?=?160) of cases. Sensitivity to fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides was tested in all bacterial isolates, presenting values of 96.66% and 98.12%. In our region, the most common bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and they showed high sensitivity rates to first-line antibiotics, without any modification or emergence of antibiotic resistance trends during the 10 years of the study. For this reason, we decided to maintain the same internal protocol in our tertiary centre.

Project description:The GMC states that, 'You must be satisfied that, when you are off duty, suitable arrangements have been made for your patients' medical care…including effective hand-over procedures' [1]. The medical weekend handover system at this tertiary referral centre involved multiple pieces of paper with no clear list of tasks, and no way to identify critically unwell patients. Patients could be missed from the ward round or could be difficult to identify under pressure. The authors felt this process could pose a threat to patient safety so decided to improve it. A questionnaire was distributed to all 11 medical SHOs with 100% response rate. Results showed that 72% thought the process was unstructured, 81% did not think the process was always safe, and 100% thought it could be improved. After discussions with senior medical management and with the approval of the trust audit committee, a new weekend handover proforma was designed, taking into consideration the results and comments from the questionnaire. The new proforma is accessible through a shared drive, which can be accessed by all medical SHOs in the hospital. Each team is able to copy their patients onto the combined ward-based list. There are columns for specific weekend jobs and registrar/SHO reviews. Any potentially unwell patients are highlighted in bold and discussed with the on-call SHO on Friday. All medical SHOs were given a post-implementation questionnaire after the new handover process had been in place for two months. Results of this showed that 100% of SHOs felt an improvement had been made, with 100% stating that the new system was more structured (64% always, 36% most of the time). The SHO's perception of patient safety increased from 81% generally unsafe, to 100% generally safe. The new handover has been well received and supported by the current SHO cohort. Improvements in the structure of handover have been made with perceived improvements in patient safety. Due to the success of the system, the handover proforma is being implemented in the trust's sister hospital.