Quick Diagnosis Units Research Articles

Utilidad de una unidad de diagnóstico rápido durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 para el diagnóstico de cáncer

ObjectivesTo analyse changes in health care activity, time of referral and diagnosis intervals and the incidence of cancer during the first 2years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a quick diagnosis unit. Materials and methodsA retrospective observational study was carried out during the prepandemic year (March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020) and the first 2years of the pandemic (March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2022). Demographic and clinical variables, the first visit interval, the diagnosis interval and the first visit-diagnosis interval were evaluated and compared. ResultsDuring the first pandemic wave, there was a reduction in referrals (−32.6%), which then increased 8.1% and 17.7% from the second wave until the end of the first pandemic year and the second pandemic year, respectively. An increase in referrals to primary care and a decrease in emergencies were identified. The increase in cancer diagnoses of 2.7% and 15.7% in the 2years of the pandemic was proportional to the increase in referrals. No changes were observed in benign processes or in cancer locations and stages. The first visit interval was higher for benign diseases (p < 0.0001). A prolongation of the diagnosis interval was observed in cancer patients, although during the 3years of the study the median was <15 days. ConclusionsThe impact of the pandemic affected the length of intervals and the origins of referrals. The quick diagnosis units constitute and urgent complementary cancer diagnostic route with a high diagnosis yield.

Utility of a quick diagnostic unit during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic for the diagnosis of cancer

ObjectivesTo analyse changes in health care activity, time of referral and diagnosis intervals and the incidence of cancer during the first two years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a quick diagnosis unit. Materials and methodsA retrospective observational study was carried out during the prepandemic year (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and the first two years of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022). Demographic and clinical variables, the first visit interval, the diagnosis interval and the first visit-diagnosis interval were evaluated and compared. ResultsDuring the first pandemic wave, there was a reduction in referrals (−32.6%), which then increased 8.1% and 17.7% from the second wave until the end of the first pandemic year and the second pandemic year, respectively. An increase in referrals to primary care and a decrease in emergencies were identified. The increase in cancer diagnoses of 2.7% and 15.7% in the two years of the pandemic was proportional to the increase in referrals. No changes were observed in benign processes or in cancer locations and stages. The first visit interval was higher for benign diseases (p<0.0001). A prolongation of the diagnosis interval was observed in cancer patients, although during the three years of the study the median was <15 days. ConclusionsThe impact of the pandemic affected the length of intervals and the origins of referrals. The quick diagnosis units constitutes and urgent complementary cancer diagnostic route with a high diagnosis yield.

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.

The impact of Covid-19 on patients with suspected cancer: An analysis of ED presentation and referrals to a quick diagnosis unit.

PurposePatients evaluated in the emergency department (ED) who have concerning symptoms suggestive of a cancer diagnosis are mostly referred to the quick diagnosis unit of our tertiary hospital. This study analyzed the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the volume, disease patterns, and accessibility to essential investigations of patients with suspected cancer referred by the ED to this unit.MethodsTrends in referrals were analyzed from January 1 to July 8, 2020 and the corresponding dates of 2019. Only non-Covid-19 conditions were evaluated. Three time-based cohorts were defined: prepandemic (January 1–February 19), pandemic (February 19–April 22), and postpandemic (April 22–July 8). Along with descriptive statistics, linear regression was used to test for time trends with weekly referrals as the dependent variable.ResultsThere were 384, 193, and 450 patients referred during the prepandemic, pandemic, and postpandemic periods, respectively. Following an increasing rate, referrals decreased to unprecedented levels in the pandemic period (average weekly slope: −2.1 cases), then increasing again until near normalization. Waiting times to most diagnostic procedures including radiology, endoscopic, nuclear medicine, and biopsy/cytology during the pandemic period were significantly delayed and time-to-diagnosis was considerably longer (19.72 ± 10.37 days vs. 8.33 ± 3.94 days in prepandemic and 13.49 ± 6.45 days in postpandemic period; P < 0.001 in both). Compared to other cohorts, pandemic cohort patients were more likely to have unintentional weight loss and fever of unknown origin as referral indications while anemia and lymphadenopathy were less common. Patients from the pandemic cohort had a significantly lower rate of malignancies and higher of benign gastrointestinal disorders (40.93% vs. 19.53% and 20.89% in prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively; P < 0.001 in both), most notably irritable bowel disease, and of mental and behavioral disorders (15.54% vs. 3.39% and 6.00% in prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively; P < 0.001 in both).ConclusionsAs our hospital switched its traditional care to one focused on Covid-19 patients, recognized indicators of healthcare quality of quick diagnosis units were severely disrupted. The clinical patterns of presentation and diagnosis of the pandemic period suggested that mass media-generated mental and behavioral responses with distressing symptoms played a significant role in most of these 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.

What is the relevance of an ambulatory quick diagnosis unit or inpatient admission for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer? A retrospective study of 1004 patients.

Quick diagnosis units (QDU) have become an alternative hospital-based ambulatory medicine strategy to inpatient hospitalization for potentially serious illnesses in Spain. Whether diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is better accomplished by an ambulatory or inpatient approach is unknown. The main objective of this retrospective study was to examine and compare the diagnostic effectiveness of a QDU or inpatient setting in patients with pancreatic cancer.Patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had been referred to a university, tertiary hospital-based QDU or hospitalized between 2005 and 2018 were eligible. Presenting symptoms and signs, risk and prognostic factors, and time to diagnosis were compared. The costs incurred during the diagnostic assessment were analyzed with a microcosting method.A total of 1004 patients (508 QDU patients and 496 inpatients) were eligible. Admitted patients were more likely than QDU patients to have weight loss, asthenia, anorexia, abdominal pain, jaundice, and palpable hepatomegaly. Time to diagnosis of inpatients was similar to that of QDU patients (4.1 [0.8 vs 4.3 [0.6] days; P = .163). Inpatients were more likely than QDU patients to have a tumor on the head of the pancreas, a tumor size >2 cm, a more advanced nodal stage, and a poorer histological differentiation. No differences were observed in the proportion of metastatic and locally advanced disease and surgical resections. Microcosting revealed a cost of €347.76 (48.69) per QDU patient and €634.36 (80.56) per inpatient (P < .001).Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is similarly achieved by an inpatient or QDU clinical approach, but the latter seems to be cost-effective. Because the high costs of hospitalization, an ambulatory diagnostic assessment may be preferable in these patients.

Isolated involuntary weight loss: Epidemiology and predictive factors of malignancy

Background and objectivesThe aims of the study were to analyse the epidemiology, prognostic and predictive factors of malignant disease on isolated involuntary weight loss (IIWL) and to know the effectiveness of the quick diagnosis unit in the evaluation of the process. Materials and methodsProspective observational study realised from 2006 to 2015 of all patients who were evaluated with IIWL in the quick diagnosis unit. Demographic, clinical, diagnostic and evolutive variables were analysed. Through the analysis of logistic regression, predictive factors of malignant disease and prognostic factors were identified. ResultsOf the 533 registered patients, 55.1% were ≥65 years old. The diagnostics were: non-neoplastic organic disorders in 214 patients (40.2%), psychiatric disorders in 144 (27%), cancer in 81 (15.2%) and unknown cause in 94 (17.6%). In 66.7% of the patients with cancer, there was an increase of serum tumour markers (STM). Being over 60 (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.27–5.77; p=0.01), male (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.52–6.87; p=0.002), increase of an STM (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.17–4.8; p=0.016) and more than one STM (OR: 6.51; 95% CI: 2.62–16.13; p=0.000) were identified as predictive factors of malignancy. Mortality was 14.2%; the diagnosis of cancer (OR: 47.61; 95% CI: 20.76–109.19; p=0.000) was identified as a prognostic factor. ConclusionsIIWL is a clinical syndrome that requires a study with a sequential protocol and follow-up. STM were identified as predictive factors of malignancy.

Pérdida de peso involuntaria aislada: epidemiología y factores predictivos de malignidad

Background and objectivesThe aims of the study were to analyse the epidemiology, prognostic and predictive factors of malignant disease on isolated involuntary weight loss (IIWL) and to know the effectiveness of the quick diagnosis unit in the evaluation of the process. Material and methodsProspective observational study realised from 2006 to 2015 of all patients who were evaluated with IIWL in the quick diagnosis unit. Demographic, clinical, diagnostic and evolutive variables were analysed. Through the analysis of logistic regression, predictive factors of malignant disease and prognostic factors were identified. ResultsOf the 533 registered patients, 55.1% were≥65 years old. The diagnostics were: non-neoplastic organic disorders in 214 patients (40.2%), psychiatric disorders in 144 (27%), cancer in 81 (15.2%) and unknown cause in 94 (17.6%). In 66.7% of the patients with cancer, there was an increase of serum tumour markers (STM). Being over 60 (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.27-5.77; P=.01) %), male (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.52-6.87; P=0.002), increase of an STM (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.17-4.8; P=0.016) and more than one STM (OR: 6.51; 95% CI: 2.62-16.13; P=0.000) were identified as predictive factors of malignancy. Mortality was 14.2%; the diagnosis of cancer (OR: 47.61; 95% CI: 20.76-109.19; P=0.000) was identified as a prognostic factor. ConclusionsIIWL is a clinical syndrome that requires a study with a sequential protocol and follow-up. STM were identified as predictive factors of malignancy.

Cost-minimization analysis favors outpatient quick diagnosis unit over hospitalization for the diagnosis of potentially serious diseases

BackgroundQuick diagnosis units (QDUs) are a promising alternative to conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of suspected serious diseases, most commonly cancer and severe anemia. Although QDUs are as effective as hospitalization in reaching a timely diagnosis, a full economic evaluation comparing both approaches has not been reported. AimsTo evaluate the costs of QDU vs. conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of cancer and anemia using a cost-minimization analysis on the proven assumption that health outcomes of both approaches were equivalent. MethodsPatients referred to the QDU of Bellvitge University Hospital of Barcelona over 51 months with a final diagnosis of severe anemia (unrelated to malignancy), lymphoma, and lung cancer were compared with patients hospitalized for workup with the same diagnoses. The total cost per patient until diagnosis was analyzed. Direct and non-direct costs of QDU and hospitalization were compared. ResultsTime to diagnosis in QDU patients (n=195) and length-of-stay in hospitalized patients (n=237) were equivalent. There were considerable costs savings from hospitalization. Highest savings for the three groups were related to fixed direct costs of hospital stays (66% of total savings). Savings related to fixed non-direct costs of structural and general functioning were 33% of total savings. Savings related to variable direct costs of investigations were 1% of total savings. Overall savings from hospitalization of all patients were €867,719.31. ConclusionQDUs appear to be a cost-effective resource for avoiding unnecessary hospitalization in patients with anemia and cancer. Internists, hospital executives, and healthcare authorities should consider establishing this model elsewhere.

Factors Associated with Hospitalization among Emergency Department Patients Referred for Quick Investigation of Iron-Deficiency Anemia

BackgroundAlthough patients with anemia are frequently seen in emergency departments (EDs), studies on patients presenting there with symptomatic chronic anemia—usually iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) caused by occult gastrointestinal bleeding—are lacking. Awareness of predictors of hospitalization could direct the ED triage to the appropriate diagnostic setting. ObjectiveBased on initial observations that some patients with IDA were hospitalized after ED referral and initial evaluation at a quick diagnosis unit (QDU), a new cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for diagnostic workup, this study aimed to determine the patient factors associated with hospitalization after the first QDU visit. MethodsAn 8-year prospective cohort study of patients with IDA referred from the ED to the QDU of a third-level university hospital was conducted. Patients with a baseline hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL in the ED, proven iron deficiency, and no overt bleeding were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization after the initial QDU assessment. ResultsTwo hundred eighty-four (7.7%) of 3692 patients were hospitalized. Inter-rater agreement of appropriateness of admissions was 90.6% (κ = 0.82). Overall, 90% of study patients presented to the ED with symptomatic anemia, and 87% were transfused there. On multivariate analysis, age ≥65 years, living alone, a post-transfusion hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL, higher age-adjusted overall comorbidity, heart failure, and poor physical health-related quality of life at first QDU visit independently predicted hospitalization. ConclusionWhile these predictors do not necessarily reflect the need for hospitalization, they are easily evaluated during the initial ED visit and can guide the triage of similar IDA patients to the suitable setting for timely investigation.

Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study.

BackgroundAlthough hospital-based outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDU) are an increasingly recognized cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, patient perception of their quality of care has not been evaluated well enough. This cross-sectional study analyzed the perceived quality of care of a QDU of a public third-level university hospital in Barcelona.MethodsOne hundred sixty-two consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years attending the QDU over a 9-month period were invited to participate. A validated questionnaire distributed by the QDU attending physician and completed at the end of the first and last QDU visit evaluated perceived quality of care using six subscales.ResultsResponse rate was 98 %. Perceived care in all subscales was high. Waiting times were rated as ‘short’/’very short’ or ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 69–89 % of respondents and physical environment as ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 94–96 %. As to accessibility, only 3 % reported not finding the Unit easily and 7 % said that frequent travels to hospital for visits and investigations were uncomfortable. Perception of patient–physician encounter was high, with 90–94 % choosing the positive extreme ends of the clinical information and personal interaction subscales items. Mean score of willingness to recommend the Unit using an analogue scale where 0 was ‘never’ and 10 ‘without a doubt’ was 9.5 (0.70). On multivariate linear regression, age >65 years was an independent predictor of clinical information, personal interaction, and recommendation, while age 18–44 years was associated with lower scores in these subscales. No schooling predicted higher clinical information and recommendation scores, while university education had remarkable negative influence on them. Having ≥4 QDU visits was associated with lower time to diagnosis and recommendation scores and malignancy was a negative predictor of time to diagnosis, clinical information, and recommendation.DiscussionIt is worthy of note that the questionnaire evaluated patient perception and opinions of healthcare quality including recommendation rather than simply satisfaction. It has been argued that perception of quality of care is a more valuable approach than satisfaction. In addition to embracing an affective dimension, satisfaction appears more dependent on patient expectations than is perception of quality.ConclusionsWhile appreciating that completing the questionnaire immediately after the visit and its distribution by the QDU physician may have affected the results, scores of perceived quality of care including recommendation were high. There were, however, significant differences in several subscales associated with age, education, number of QDU visits, and diagnosis of malignant vs. benign condition.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

AB1089 Diagnosis of Systemic Inflammatory Diseases in Patients with Fever Referred to A Quick Diagnosis Unit: Experience of A Third Level Teaching Hospital in Barcelona

BackgroundQuick diagnosis units (QDUs) are an effective, useful and cost-saving model for the diagnosis of a wide range of diseases. Fever is a common symptom for multiple diseases and is...

Primary care referrals of patients with potentially serious diseases to the emergency department or a quick diagnosis unit: a cross-sectional retrospective study.

BackgroundIn Spain, primary healthcare (PHC) referrals for diagnostic procedures are subject to long waiting-times, and physicians and patients often use the emergency department (ED) as a shortcut. We aimed to determine whether patients evaluated at a hospital outpatient quick diagnosis unit (QDU) who were referred to ED from 12 PHC centers could have been directly referred to QDU, thus avoiding ED visits. As a secondary objective, we determined the proportion of QDU patients who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of patients with potentially serious conditions attended by the QDU from December 2007 to December 2012. We established 2 groups of patients: 1) patients referred from PHC to QDU (PHC-QDU group) and 2) patients referred from PHC to ED, then to QDU (PHC-ED-QDU group). Two observers assessed the appropriateness/inappropriateness of each referral using a scoring system. The interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the dependent variable ‘ED referral’.ResultsWe evaluated 1186 PHC-QDU and 1004 PHC-ED-QDU patients and estimated that 93.1% of PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU. In contrast, 96% of PHC-QDU patients were found to be appropriately referred to QDU first. The agreement for PHC-QDU referrals (PHC-QDU group) was rated as excellent (ϰ = 0.81), while it was rated as good for PHC-ED referrals (PHC-ED-QDU group) (ϰ = 0.75). The mean waiting-time for the first QDU visit was longer in PHC-QDU (4.8 days) than in PHC-ED-QDU (2.6 days) patients (P = .001). On multivariate analysis, anemia (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.49–4.55, P < .001), rectorrhagia (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.10–3.77, P = .01) and febrile syndrome (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.33-4.12, P = .002) were independent factors associated with ED referral. Nearly one-fifth of all QDU patients were found who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting.ConclusionsMost PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU from PHC, avoiding the inconvenience of the ED visit. A stricter definition of QDU evaluation criteria may be needed to improve and hasten PHC referrals.

Suggestions for a sustainable medical quality-centered approach within a predictive, preventive and personalized medicine: the promotion of alternatives to conventional hospitalization in an era of financial constraint

Alternatives to traditional hospital acute care for medical disorders address to benefits for the Health Systems, which experience budget constraints [1]. The comprehensive approach to the use of high-tech medicine for improved health care provided by the European Association for Predictive, Preventive, and Personalized Medicine (EPMA) is exactly along this line of intervention [2]. The rubber hits the road in the doctor-patient relationship, and the collective health-care knowledge must be applied to the particular patient's health-care situation [2]. A sustainable answers are the “Quick diagnosis units” [3] often reported with limited clinical description. In our Institution we shifted, beginning in 2004, part of the patients addressed by our emergency department toward an autonomous out-patient Diagnostic and Therapy Medical Unit (DTU), which has essential point of care laboratory test facility and certified competence of the Medical staff (two senior and two Junior Medical Doctors) in Medical Ultrasound, Echocardiography and dietary/physical exercise assessment and prescription[4], helped by a part-time dietitian, health psychologist and a nurse with intensive care experience. All procedures, including echo-guided diagnostic-therapeutic intervention, are performed by the components of the staff. Admittances are primarily oriented toward the care of patients with chronic liver disease, secondary anemia, severe malnutrition (including mental anorexia), heart failure; 25% of patients had a diagnosis of Cancer; 18% of patients were diagnosed by biopsies of various organs. The stay in DH was 6.3±2.1 non consecutive days, with a shortage of costs, with a case mix index (1.39±0.23. The DTU is a place of training for Post-Graduate MDs of the School of Internal Medicine and of the Postgraduate School of Medical Ultrasound. It provides quick and timely diagnosis, by ultrasound and lifestyle assessment, and articulated therapeutic strategies, including dietary and physical exercise prescription [5]. The critical contribution of DTU [3] is medical-quality centered more than medical-accountancy-centered. Greater focus on staff professional competences in sustainable diagnostic procedures, such as ultrasound, lifestyle assessment and dietary and health-psychology intervention is needed for enhancing effectiveness. Such strategy will fasten diagnosis and follow-up, allowing affordable therapeutic personalized approaches [4,5]. These issues were and are object of controlled studies that were and will be published on peer-reviewed high impact medical journals.

Quick diagnosis units—an effective alternative to hospitalization for diagnostic workup: A systematic review

This era of healthcare reform emphasizes improving value of care. Inpatient admissions for diagnostic evaluation put economic pressure on an already strained healthcare system. We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of quick diagnosis units (QDUs), an established outpatient model for early diagnostic workups in Europe. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies that focused on implementation of quick/rapid diagnosis units, with relevant Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. Of 2047 studies, we selected 13 for full-text screening and bibliography review. Of these, 5 studies included at least 2 primary outcomes of interest and were included in our review. These units functioned as outpatient clinics, staffed by internists, nurses, and clerical staff, with expedited scheduling of outpatient diagnostic tests. Our primary outcome measures were final diagnosis, the mean time to final diagnosis, inpatient bed-days saved per patient, and costs saved per patient. We also studied discharge disposition, care preferences, and safety data. About 18% to 30% of patients were diagnosed with malignancy, with an average time to diagnosis of 6 to 11 days. Inpatient bed-days saved per patient ranged from 4.5 to 7. Savings from fixed costs of hospitalization ranged from $2336(€1764) to $3304(€2514) for each patient enrolled in the protocol. The QDU model was preferred by 88% of patients, and patient satisfaction rates were 95% to 97%. QDUs seem an effective and cost-saving alternative to inpatient hospitalization, and appear to be a safe approach for diagnostic workup of potentially severe diseases in select patient populations, although there are limited safety data available.

A quick diagnosis unit as an alternative to conventional hospitalization in a tertiary public hospital: a descriptive study

Reports indicate that a significant number of patients admitted to internal medicine units could be studied on an outpatient basis. This article assesses a quick diagnosis unit (QDU) as an alternative to acute hospitalization for the diagnostic study of patients with potentially serious diseases and suspected malignancy. Between March 2008 and June 2012, 1226 patients were attended by the QDU. Patients were referred from the emergency department, primary health care centers, and outpatient clinics according to well‑defined criteria. Clinical information was prospectively registered in a database. There were 634 men (51.7%), with a mean age of 60.5 ±17.5 years. The mean time to the first visit was 3.5 ±5.3 days. Most patients (65.7%) required only 2 visits. The mean interval to diagnosis was 12.2 ±14.7 days. A total of 324 patients (26.4%) had cancer. The diagnosis was solid tumor in 81.5% of the cases, lymphoma in 19.8%, and various hematologic malignancies in 4.3%. The second most common diagnosis was anemia not associated with cancer (8.6% of the cases). Admission to the QDU allowed to avoid conventional hospitalization for diagnostic studies in 71.5% of the patients, representing a mean freeing‑up rate of 7 internal medicine beds per day. In a satisfaction survey, 97% of the patients were completely or very satisfied and 96% preferred the QDU to conventional hospitalization. A QDU may be a feasible alternative to conventional hospitalization for the diagnosis of otherwise healthy patients with suspected severe disease. Appropriately managed and supported, QDUs can lighten the burden of emergency departments and reduce the need for hospitals beds.

Should alternatives to conventional hospitalisation be promoted in an era of financial constraint?

Because the current economic crisis has led to austerity in health policies, with severe restrictions on public health care, avoiding unnecessary admissions and shortening hospital stays is rapidly becoming an urgent priority. Alternatives to hospitalisation replace or shorten hospital processes, including diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and follow-up. This review aims to present the available evidence on alternatives to conventional hospitalisation for medical disorders; options for surgery, psychiatry and palliative care are largely excluded. Narrative review. The main alternatives to conventional hospitalisation include day centres (DC), quick diagnosis units (QDU), hospital at home (HaH) and, in some circumstances, telemonitoring. DC increase patient comfort, reduce costs and can improve efficiency. In generally healthy patients with suspected severe disease, QDU may be a good alternative to hospitalisation for diagnostic procedures. However, their cost-effectiveness remains to be clearly proven. Randomised controlled trials have shown that hospital-at-home (HaH) can lead to earlier hospital discharges, improve outcomes and reduce costs in patients with prevalent chronic diseases. Although telemonitoring seems to be promising and its use is increasing, methodologically sounder studies with a higher level of evidence are needed to assess its clinical effectiveness. Factors such as ageing, the need for an earlier diagnosis of suspected severe disease, the increasing complexity of medical care and the increasing costs of hospitalisation mean that, whenever possible, giving priority to less expensive alternatives to hospital admission, such as QDU, DC, HaH and telemedicine, is an urgent task in the current economic crisis.

Quick diagnosis units: avoiding referrals from primary care to the ED and hospitalizations

PurposeThe aim of the present study was to determine whether quick diagnosis units (QDUs) can safely and efficiently avoid emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Patients and MethodsWe included a prospective cohort of 4170 consecutive patients and a retrospective cohort of 3030 hospitalized patients. Medical records of hospitalized patients were reviewed to determine whether patients were stable enough for outpatient diagnostic workup. We studied primary care (PC) and ED referral patterns in two 25-month periods. Hospital and QDU costs were analyzed by microcosting techniques, and a survey was evaluated using care preferences. ResultsFrom December 2007 to December 2009, 66% QDU patients were referred from PC to ED and 25% from PC to QDU. From January 2010 to January 2012, 35% QDU patients were referred from PC to ED and 53% from PC to QDU (P < .0001). During the first period, 36% ED patients were referred to QDU and 65% (retrospective cohort) were hospitalized, compared with 64% and 35%, respectively, during the second period (P < .0001). Between 84% and 91% of hospitalized patients were stable for QDU workup, and their hospitalization might have been avoided. Cost per process was €3241.11 in hospitalized patients and €726.47 in QDU patients. Most patients preferred the QDU model and were reluctant to first being transferred to ED. ConclusionsAn increasing number of PC and ED patients were referred to the QDU. Hospitalizations might have been avoided in at least 84% of patients. Although QDU and hospitalization are similarly effective in reaching a diagnosis, the QDU model incurs fewer costs.