Search

Introduction: Adverse events in health care affect 8% to 12% of patients admitted to hospitals in the European Union (EU), with surgical adverse events being the most common types reported., Aim: SAFEST project aims to enhance perioperative care quality and patient safety by establishing and implementing widely supported evidence-based perioperative patient safety practices to reduce surgical adverse events., Methods: We will conduct a mixed-methods hybrid type III implementation study supporting the development and adoption of evidence-based practices through a Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative (QILC) in co-creation with stakeholders. The project will be conducted in 10 hospitals and related healthcare facilities of 5 European countries. We will assess the level of adherence to the standardised practices, as well as surgical complications incidence, patient-reported outcomes, contextual factors influencing the implementation of the patient safety practices, and sustainability. The project will consist of six components: 1) Development of patient safety standardised practices in perioperative care; 2) Guided self-evaluation of the standardised practices; 3) Identification of priorities and actions plans; 4) Implementation of a QILC strategy; 5) Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness; 6) Patient empowerment for patient safety. Sustainability of the project will be ensured by systematic assessment of sustainability factors and business plans. Towards the end of the project, a call for participation will be launched to allow other hospitals to conduct the self-evaluation of the standardized practices., Discussion: The SAFEST project will promote patient safety standardized practices in the continuum of care for adult patients undergoing surgery. This project will result in a broad implementation of evidence-based practices for perioperative care, spanning from the care provided before hospital admission to post-operative recovery at home or outpatient facilities. Different implementation challenges will be faced in the application of the evidence-based practices, which will be mitigated by developing context-specific implementation strategies. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and will be available in an online platform., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Valli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

SARS-CoV-2 rapidly spread from a regional outbreak to a global pandemic in just a few months. Global research efforts have focused on developing effective vaccines against COVID-19. However, some of the basic epidemiological parameters, such as the exponential epidemic growth rate and the basic reproductive number, R 0 , across geographic areas are still not well quantified. Here, we developed and fit a mathematical model to case and death count data collected from the United States and eight European countries during the early epidemic period before broad control measures were implemented. Results show that the early epidemic grew exponentially at rates between 0.18 and 0.29/day (epidemic doubling times between 2.4 and 3.9 days). We found that for such rapid epidemic growth, high levels of intervention efforts are necessary, no matter the goal is mitigation or containment. We discuss the current estimates of the mean serial interval, and argue that existing evidence suggests that the interval is between 6 and 8 days in the absence of active isolation efforts. Using parameters consistent with this range, we estimated the median R 0 value to be 5.8 (confidence interval: 4.7-7.3) in the United States and between 3.6 and 6.1 in the eight European countries. We further analyze how vaccination schedules depend on R 0 , the duration of protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and show that individual-level heterogeneity in vaccine induced immunity can significantly affect vaccination schedules., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening and brief interventions (SBIs) for heavy drinking are an effective and cost-effective approach to reducing alcohol-related harm, yet delivery rates remain low. This study uses trial data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies to increase SBI delivery., Methods: Data from a large cluster-randomized trial were combined with the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model, a policy appraisal tool, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies to increase SBI delivery in primary care in England, Poland and the Netherlands: care as usual (control), training and support (TS), financial reimbursement (FR), referral of patients to an online brief intervention (eBI) and all combinations of TS, FR and eBI. cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare perspective by comparing health benefits (measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years) with total implementation costs and downstream healthcare savings for each strategy over a 30-year horizon and calculating Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: All trialled strategies were cost-effective compared to control. TS combined with FR was the most cost-effective approach in England (more effective and less costly than control) and Poland (ICER €4632 vs. next-best strategy). This combination is not cost-effective in the Netherlands, where TS alone is the most cost-effective approach (ICER €3386 vs. next-best strategy)., Conclusions: Structured TS, financial incentives and access to online interventions are all estimated to be cost-effective methods of improving delivery of alcohol brief interventions. TS and FR together may be the most cost-effective approach, however this is sensitive to country characteristics and alternative BI effect assumptions., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT01501552., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)