Search

Emanuela Foglia,1 Federica Asperti,1 Grazia Antonacci,2,3 Yogini H Jani,4 Elisabetta Garagiola,1 Daniele Bellavia,1 Lucrezia Ferrario1 1LIUC - University Cattaneo, Healthcare Datascience LAB, Castellanza, Varese, 21053, Italy; 2Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Northwest London, London, UK; 3Business School, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Innovation (CHEPI), Imperial College London, London, UK; 4Centre for Medicines Optimisation Research and Education, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UKCorrespondence: Elisabetta Garagiola, Healthcare Datascience Laboratory - HD LAB, LIUC-Università Cattaneo, Corso G. Matteotti, 22, Castellanza, VA, 21053, Italy, Tel +39.0331.572.467, Email egaragiola@liuc.itBackground: Automated Drug Dispensing (ADD) systems are considered to be strategic hospital assets used to reduce errors and enhance economic and organizational sustainability. With regards to efficacy and safety, the literature evidence demonstrates the incremental benefits of centralised or decentralised systems compared to manual dispensing. Analyses about organisational and economic sustainability are still lacking and the present study aims to perform a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), producing multidimensional evidence on the use of ADD systems within hospitals.Methods: In 2023, a comprehensive HTA draws insights from healthcare professionals across six European nations: Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. This appraisal juxtaposed four drug dispensing scenarios: manual methods, centralized ADD systems, decentralized ADD systems, and integrated solutions employing cutting-edge technologies in both central pharmacies and wards. The study deployed an Activity-Based Costing approach that was combined with a cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis to evaluate economic impacts. Qualitative questionnaires were implemented to assess ethical, legal, organizational, safety, and efficacy aspects.Results: From a multidimensional perspective, healthcare professionals acknowledged ADD manifold advantages of ADD systems. From an organizational perspective and within a 12-month timeframe, transitioning to automation may face initial challenges that are attributed to potential resistance from professionals and significant investments. However, 36 months past its adoption, automation’s superiority over manual methods was recognized. Economically, savings burgeoned from +17.9% in UK to +26.6% in Belgian hospitals that adopted integrated systems in comparison to traditional manual approaches.Conclusion: Compared to traditional methods, implementing ADD systems could improve the logistic management of drug in the hospital setting, thereby enhancing safety and efficacy, streamlining the healthcare professionals’ workflow, and bolstering financial stability.Keywords: automated drug dispensing systems, HTA, economic impact, drug logistic management, efficiency

Lucrezia Ferrario,1 Fabrizio Schettini,1 Elisabetta Garagiola,1 Adriana Cecchi,2 Lucia Lugoboni,3 Paolo Serra,4 Emanuele Porazzi,1 Emanuela Foglia1 1Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC University and LIUC Business School, Castellanza, Italy; 2ARCS – Azienda Regionale di Coordinamento per la Salute, Udine, Italy; 3Bee Care, Lugano, Switzerland; 4Brotzu Hospital, Cagliari, ItalyCorrespondence: Lucrezia FerrarioCarlo Cattaneo – LIUC University and LIUC Business School, Corso Matteotti 22, Castellanza, VA 21053, ItalyTel +39 033 1572504Fax +39 033 1572513Email lferrario@liuc.itPurpose: To evaluate the incremental benefits concerning the implementation of closed-system medical devices for the preparation and administration of chemotherapy agents (integrated or not with traceable workflow), within an Italian clinical practice, in which the use of such technologies is not standardized.Methodology: Four Scenarios, implying different levels of technologies introduction, were analyzed, based on the presence and/or absence of closed systems and traceable workflow, in the preparation and in the administration phase. A literature review was conducted, in order to retrieve efficacy and safety measures. Economic and organizational benefits, assuming a hospitals perspective, were assessed by means of health-economics tools, considering 27,660 (± 695.86) drugs on average prepared, on an annual basis, by 12 hospitals involved. The typology of medical devices and other devices/equipment used, the human resources involved, and the time spent for the preparation and administration phases were collected.Results: Literature stated that the introduction of advanced technologies (CSTDs in the preparation phase, closed-system in the administration phase, both integrated by a traceable workflow) could: i) decrease surface contamination (12.24% vs 26.39%, P< 0.001) and ii) improve the capability to identify dosage errors (7% vs 0.096%, P< 0.05). The above technologies presented the best trade-off between cost sustained and efficacy gained. Despite marginal investments (ranging from +1% to +6%) being required for their acquisition, an organizational saving equal to more than 1,000 working hours emerged, which could be spent on other hospital activities.Conclusion: The implementation of closed systems, integrated with a traceable workflow grounding on gravimetric control, may be considered a valid technological alternative within the investigated setting. The marginal incremental costs could be absorbed already in the first year after their introduction, in particular, because of the potential time saving in using closed systems in both the preparation and administration phases, demonstrating the sustainability and feasibility of such advanced technologies.Keywords: closed-system medical device, chemotherapy agents, safety, economic evaluation, HTA, organisational benefits

Tiziana Galli,1 Paolo Mirata,2 Emanuela Foglia,3 Davide Croce,3,4 Emanuele Porazzi,3 Lucrezia Ferrario,3 Elena Ricci,5 Elisabetta Garagiola,3 Roberta Pagani,3 Giuseppe Banfi6,7 1Department of Functional Recovery and Re-education, Hospital of Saronno, Hospital Authority “ASST Valle Olona”, Saronno, Italy; 2Department of Functional Recovery and Re-education, Hospital of Busto Arsizio, Hospital Authority “ASST Valle Olona”, Busto Arsizio, Italy; 3Centre for Research on Health Economics Social and Health Care Management (CREMS), LIUC - Università Cattaneo, Castellanza, Italy; 4School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; 5Department of Infectious Diseases, Fatebenefratelli Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy; 6Orthopaedics Institute, IRCCS Galeazzi, Milan, Italy; 7San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare 2 clinical assessment tools, the Modified Barthel Index (currently administered to patients admitted into inpatient rehabilitation units after elective hip or knee arthroplasty) with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 scale, in order to identify which tool is more suitable for assessing the disability and the “recovery rate”.Patients and methods: A perspective multicenter observational study was developed, involving 2 hospital authorities in Italy. Eighty consecutive cases of inpatients were enrolled. Patient’s disability was evaluated using both of the aforementioned tools, before and after the rehabilitation program.Results: The WHODAS 2.0 score was, on average, 12.21% higher than the Modified Barthel Index, before the surgical intervention. Modified Barthel Index measures could be considered as a determinant and a predictor of length of stay.Conclusion: The Modified Barthel Index is limited, since it does not consider a patient’s perspective. The WHODAS 2.0 scale fully considers a patient’s perception of disability. Therefore, both assessment scales should be administered in clinical practice, in order to provide integration of clinical information with a patient’s reported outcome measures. Keywords: disability, Modified Barthel Index, WHODAS 2.0, orthopedics, rehabilitation

Emanuela Foglia,1 Lucrezia Ferrario,1 Elisabetta Garagiola,1 Giuseppe Signoriello,2 Gianluca Pellino,3 Davide Croce,1,4 Silvestro Canonico3 1Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management - LIUC University, Castellanza, Italy; 2Department of Mental Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy; 3School of Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy; 4School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Purpose: Surgical-site complications (SSCs) affect patients’ clinical pathway, prolonging their hospitalization and incrementing their management costs. The present study aimed to assess the economic and organizational implications of a portable device for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) implementation, compared with the administration of pharmacological therapies alone for preventing surgical complications in patients undergoing general, cardiac, obstetrical–gynecological, or orthopedic surgical procedures.Patients and methods: A total of 8,566 hospital procedures, related to the year 2015 from one hospital, were evaluated considering infection risk index, occurrence rates of SSCs, drug therapies, and surgical, diagnostic, and specialist procedures and hematological exams. Activity-based costing and budget impact analyses were implemented for the economic assessment.Results: Patients developing an SSC absorbed i) 64.27% more economic resources considering the length of stay (€ 8,269±2,096 versus € 5,034±2,901, p