Delays in Cancer Diagnostic Testing at a Quick Referral Unit in Spain during COVID-19

Although COVID-19 has had dire consequences on diagnosis of cancer, little data assessing its impact on the whole range of diagnostic activity relevant to cancer are available. We examined trends in the provision of full diagnostic tests for consecutive patients with suspected cancer referred to an academic hospital-based Quick Diagnosis Unit from January 2019 to December 2020. As weekly volumes declined, waiting times for endoscopic, imaging and biopsy/cytology procedures increased steeply during the COVID-impacted period (26 February-28 April 2020). The average weekly increase compared with the same period in 2019 was substantial for invasive procedures requiring admission (200.70%), CT scans (171.20%), GI endoscopy (161.50%), PET/CT scans (152.50%), ultrasonography (148.40%), and ambulatory biopsy/cytology procedures (111.20%). Volumes and waiting times to other procedures showed similar trends. There was a remarkable downward trend in cancer diagnosis during the COVID-impacted period, with a 54.07% reduction compared with the same weeks in 2019. Despite a modest recovery in the following months, the decline in weekly activity and cancer rates persisted until 30 December. Providing insight into how COVID-19 changed the full spectrum of diagnostic activity for suspected cancer informs resilience-building interventions to guarantee access to fast and efficient diagnostics ahead of new threats.

Uptake of universal drug susceptibility testing among people with TB in a south Indian district: How are we faring?

BACKGROUND

India implements universal drug susceptibility testing (UDST) using rapid genotypic tests (cartridge-based nucleic acid amplification test CBNAAT - and line probe assay - LPA). to bridge the gap of diagnosis of multidrug/rifampicin-resistant TB. There is limited evidence assessing the implementation of UDST in India. We assessed the implementation among people with pulmonary TB notified from public facilities in October 2019 from Raichur (Karnataka), India.

METHODS

A cohort study involving secondary data in routine programme settings was conducted. All people with TB underwent a rapid genotypic DST for rifampicin resistance followed by first line-LPA (FL-LPA) if sensitive and second line-LPA (SL-LPA) if resistant.

RESULTS

Of 217 people, 15.7% (n=34) did not undergo rapid genotypic DST. Of 135 who were rifampicin-sensitive detected on CBNAAT, 68.1% (n=92) underwent FL-LPA, and out of the six rifampicin-resistant cases, 66.7% (n=4) underwent SL-LPA. Overall, 65.4% (142/217) completed the UDST algorithm. Children (aged <15 y) and people with bacteriological non-confirmation on microscopy were less likely to undergo rapid genotypic DST. Of 183 patients who underwent both rapid genotypic DST and sputum smear microscopy, 150 were bacteriologically confirmed and, of them, 9 (6%) were 'rapid DST-negative'.

CONCLUSION

We found gaps at various steps. There were a significant number of 'rapid DST-negative, smear-positive' patients.

A comparative cost analysis between two quick diagnosis units of different levels of complexity

Aim: To compare by micro-costing the costs incurred by quick diagnosis units of tertiary and second-level hospitals. Patients & methods: We included 407 patients from a tertiary and secondary hospital unit. A bottom-up approach was applied. Results: Cost per patient was €577.5 ± 219.6 in the tertiary versus €394.7 ± 92.58 in the secondary unit (p = 0.0559). Mean number of visits and ratio of successive/first visits were significantly higher in the former (3.098 and 2.07 vs 2.123 and 1.12, respectively). Personnel and indirect costs including their percent contribution to overall costs accounted for the main differences. Conclusion: A greater volume of appointments, number of staff and staff time and a greater complexity of patients from the tertiary hospital unit justified the differences in cost outcomes.

Trends in Hospitalization of Patients with Potentially Serious Diseases Evaluated at a Quick Diagnosis Clinic

Although quick diagnosis units (QDU) have become a cost-effective alternative to inpatient admission for diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, the rate of return hospitalizations among evaluated patients is unknown. This study examined the temporal trends in admissions of QDU patients through 15 years. Adult patients referred to QDU from 2004 to 2019 who were hospitalized between the first and last visit in the unit were eligible. Decisions about admissions were mainly based on the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol and required independent validation by experienced clinicians using a customized tool. The final analysis included 825 patients. Patient characteristics and major reasons for admission were compared each year and linear trends were analyzed. Admission rates decreased from 7.2% in 2004–2005 to 4.3% in 2018–2019 (p < 0.0001). While a significant increasing trend was observed in the rate of admissions due to cancer-related complications (from 39.5% in 2004–2005 to 61.7% in 2018–2019; p < 0.0001), those due to anemia-related complications and scheduled invasive procedures experienced a significant downward trend. A likely explanation for these declining trends was the relocation of the unit to a new daycare center in 2013–2014 with recovery rooms and armchairs for IV treatments. The facts of this study could help in the provision of anticipatory guidance for the optimal management of patients at risk of clinical complications.

Quick diagnosis units: predictors of time to diagnosis and costs

Financial crisis has forced health systems to seek alternatives to hospitalization-based healthcare. Quick diagnosis units (QDUs) are cost-effective compared to hospitalization, but the determinants of QDU costs have not been studied.We aimed at assessing the predictors of costs of a district hospital QDU (Hospital Plató, Barcelona) between 2009 and 2016.This study was a retrospective longitudinal single center study of 404 consecutive outpatients referred to the QDU of Hospital Plató. The referral reason was dichotomized into suggestive of malignancy vs other. The final diagnosis was dichotomized into organic vs nonorganic and malignancy vs nonmalignancy. All individual resource costs were obtained from the finance department to conduct a micro-costing analysis of the study period.Mean age was 62 ± 20 years (women = 56%), and median time-to-diagnosis, 12 days. Total and partial costs were greater in cases with final diagnosis of organic vs nonorganic disorder, as it was in those with symptoms suggestive or a final diagnosis of cancer vs noncancer. Of all subcosts, imaging showed the stronger correlation with total cost. Time-to-diagnosis and imaging costs were significant predictors of total cost above the median in binary logistic regression, with imaging costs also being a significant predictor in multiple linear regression (with total cost as quantitative outcome).Predictors of QDU costs are partly nonmodifiable (i.e., cancer suspicion, actually one of the goals of QDUs). Yet, improved primary-care-to-hospital referral circuits reducing time to diagnosis as well as optimized imaging protocols might further increase the QDU cost-effectiveness process. Prospective studies (ideally with direct comparison to conventional hospitalization costs) are needed to explore this possibility.

Quick outpatient diagnosis in small district or general tertiary hospitals: A comparative observational study

While quick diagnosis units (QDUs) have expanded as an innovative cost-effective alternative to admission for workup, studies investigating how QDUs compare are lacking. This study aimed to comparatively describe the diagnostic performance of the QDU of an urban district hospital and the QDU of its reference general hospital.This was an observational descriptive study of 336 consecutive outpatients aged ≥18 years referred to the QDU of a urban district hospital in Barcelona (QDU1) during 2009 to 2016 for evaluation of suspected severe conditions whose physical performance allowed them to travel from home to hospital and back for visits and examinations. For comparison purposes, 530 randomly selected outpatients aged ≥18 years referred to the QDU of the reference tertiary hospital (QDU2), also in Barcelona, were included. Clinical and QDU variables were analyzed and compared.Mean age and sex were similar (61.97 (19.93) years and 55% of females in QDU1 vs 60.0 (18.81) years and 52% of females in QDU2; P values = .14 and .10, respectively). Primary care was the main referral source in QDU1 (69%) and the emergency department in QDU2 (59%). Predominant referral reasons in QDU1 and 2 were unintentional weight loss (UWL) (21 and 16%), anemia (14 and 21%), adenopathies and/or palpable masses (10 and 11%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (10 and 19%). Time-to-diagnosis was longer in QDU1 than 2 (12 [1-28] vs 8 [4-14] days; P < .001). Malignancy was more common in QDU2 than 1 (19 vs 13%; P = .001). Patients from both groups with malignancy, aged ≥65 years and requiring >2 visits to be diagnosed were in general more likely to be males, to have UWL and adenopathies and/or palpable masses but less likely anemia, to undergo more examinations except endoscopy, and to be referred onward to specialist outpatient clinics.Despite some differences, results showed that, for diagnostic purposes, the overall performance and effectiveness of QDUs of urban district and reference general hospitals in evaluating patients with potentially serious conditions were similar. This study, the first to compare the performance of 2 hospital-based QDUs, adds evidence to the opportunity of producing standardized guidelines to optimize QDUs infrastructure, functioning, and efficiency.

Diagnosing unexplained fever: can quick diagnosis units replace inpatient hospitalization?

BACKGROUND

Outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDUs) have become an increasingly recognized alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of a number of potentially serious diseases. No study has prospectively evaluated the usefulness of QDU for the diagnosis of unexplained fever.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively assessed patients referred to QDU due to fever of uncertain nature (FUN), defined as a temperature > 38 °C during at least 1 week and no diagnosis after a previous evaluation. We also evaluated consecutive patients with FUN who were hospitalized during the same period. QDU and hospital costs were analysed by micro-costing techniques.

RESULTS

We evaluated 176 QDU patients and 168 controls. QDU patients were younger and required fewer investigations than controls. QDU patients had higher prevalence of viral infections (36% vs. 8%, P < 0·001) and lower prevalence of bacterial infections (6% vs. 46%, P < 0·001) and malignancies (2% vs. 14%, P < 0·001). While time-to-diagnosis of QDU patients was longer than length-of-stay of controls (25·82 vs.12·89 days, P < 0·001), 56% of QDU patients only required up to two visits. Cost per QDU patient was €644·59, while it was €4404·64 per hospitalized patient.

CONCLUSIONS

QDU patients with FUN were younger and had less serious diseases than controls including more viral and less bacterial infections and fewer malignancies. Mainly owing to untimely diagnostic reports, time-to-diagnosis was longer in QDU patients. Cost-savings in QDU were substantial. Using objective tools to evaluate the condition severity and general health status of FUN patients could help decide the most appropriate setting for their diagnostic study.