Opioid-related adverse drug events were common among patients undergoing hospital-based invasive procedures and were associated with significantly worse clinical and cost outcomes. Hospital-acquired harm from ORADEs in the surgical patient population is an important opportunity for health systems to improve patient safety and reduce cost.

IntroductionRecovery from orthopedic surgery is oriented towards restoring functional health outcomes while reducing hospital length of stay (LOS) and medical expenditures. Optimal pain management is a key to reaching these objectives. We sought to compare orthopedic surgery patients who received combination intravenous (IV) acetaminophen and IV opioid analgesia to those who received IV opioids alone and compared the two groups on LOS and hospitalization costs.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of the Premier Database (Premier, Inc.; between January 2009 and June 2015) comparing orthopedic surgery patients who received post-operative pain management with combination IV acetaminophen and IV opioids to those who received only IV opioids starting on the day of surgery and continuing up to the second post-operative day. The quarterly rate of IV acetaminophen use for all hospitalizations by hospital served as the instrumental variable in two-stage least squares regressions controlling for patient and hospital covariates to compare the LOS and hospitalization costs of IV acetaminophen recipients to opioid monotherapy patients.ResultsWe identified 4,85,895 orthopedic surgery patients with 1,74,805 (36%) who had received IV acetaminophen. Study subjects averaged 64 years of age and were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasians (78%) and female (58%). The mean unadjusted LOS for IV acetaminophen patients was 3.2 days [standard deviation (SD) 2.6] compared to 3.9 days (SD 3.9) with only IV opioids (P < 0.0001). Average unadjusted hospitalization costs were $19,024.9 (SD $13,113.7) for IV acetaminophen patients and $19,927.6 (SD $19,578.8) for IV opioid patients (P < 0.0001). These differences remained statistically significant in our instrumental variable models, with IV acetaminophen associated with 0.51 days shorter hospitalization [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.58 to −0.44, P < 0.0001] and $634.8 lower hospitalization costs (95% CI −$1032.5 to −$237.1, P = 0.0018).ConclusionCompared to opioids alone, managing post-orthopedic surgery pain with the addition of IV acetaminophen is associated with shorter LOS and decreased hospitalization costs.FundingMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

Objectives: Hepatorenal Syndrome (HRS) is characterized by renal failure in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (CLD) and is the leading cause of hospitalizations in CLD. This study examines the clinical and economic burden, outcomes, and unmet need of HRS treatment in US hospitals. Method: A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a large electronic health records database (Cerner HealthFacts) with records for hospitalized HRS patients from January 2009-June 2015. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and economic outcomes were analyzed. Prognostic indicators of cirrhosis, kidney injury, end-stage liver disease, and acute-on-chronic liver failure were used to determine mortality risk. Results: A total of 2,542 patients hospitalized with HRS were identified (average age ¼ 57.9 years, 61.8% males, 74.2% Caucasian), with an average total hospital charge of $91,504 per patient and a mean length of stay (LOS) of 30.5 days. The mortality rate was 36.9% with 8.9% of patients discharged to hospice. Of all patients, 1,660 patients had acute kidney injury, 859 with Stage 3 disease, and 26.7% had dialysis. The 30-day readmission rate was 33.1%, 41% of which were unplanned. Nearly one-third of study patients had commercial insurance (30.2%), followed by Medicare (29.9%); hospital charges varied by LOS, receipt of dialysis, and discharge status. Regression analysis demonstrated that HRS costs are associated with LOS, dialysis, and hospital mortality. Conclusion: HRS is associated with poor outcomes and high hospital costs. Analysis of HRS cost drivers demonstrated an unmet need for additional treatment options to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Background: Recovery from spine surgery is oriented toward restoring functional health outcomes while reducing resource use. Optimal pain management is a key to reaching these objectives. We compared outcomes of spine surgery patients who received standard pain management including intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (APAP) vs. oral APAP. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Premier database (January 2012 to September 2015) comparing spine surgery patients who received pain management with IV APAP to those who received oral APAP, with no exclusions based on additional pain management. We performed multivariable logistic regression for the discharge and all cause 30-day readmission to the same hospital outcomes and instrumental variable regressions using the quarterly rate of IV APAP use for all hospitalizations by hospital as the instrument in two-stage least squares regressions for length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, and average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED) outcomes. Models adjusted for age, gender, race, admission type, 3M All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group severity of illness and risk of mortality, hospital size, and indicators for whether the hospital was an academic center and whether it was urban or rural. Results: We identified 112,586 spine surgery patients with 51,835 (46%) having received IV APAP. Subjects averaged 57 and 59 years of age respectively in the IV APAP and oral APAP cohorts and were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasians and female. In our adjusted models, IV APAP was associated with 0.68 days shorter LOS (95% CI: À0.76 to À0.59, p < .0001), $1175 lower hospitalization costs (95% CI: À$1611 to À$739, p < .0001), 13 mg lower average daily MED (95% CI: À14 mg to À12 mg, p < .0001), 34% lower risk of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.69, p < .0001), and 13% less risk of 30-day readmission (95% CI: 0.73 to 1.03). Conclusions: Compared to oral APAP, managing post-spine-surgery pain with IV APAP is associated with less resource use, lower costs, lower doses of opioids, and improved discharge status.

IntroductionThe provision of safe, effective, cost-efficient perioperative inpatient acute pain management is an important concern among clinicians and administrators within healthcare institutions. Overreliance on opioid monotherapy in this setting continues to present health risks for patients and increase healthcare costs resulting from preventable adverse events. The goal of this study was to model length of stay (LOS), potential opioid-related complications, and costs for patients reducing opioid use and adding intravenous acetaminophen (IV APAP) for management of postoperative pain.MethodsData for this study were de-identified inpatient encounters from The Advisory Board Company across 297 hospitals from 2012–2014, containing 2,238,433 encounters (IV APAP used in 12.1%). Encounters for adults ≥18 years of age admitted for cardiovascular, colorectal, general, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, or spine surgery were included. The effects of reducing opioids and adding IV APAP were estimated using hierarchical statistical models. Costs were estimated by multiplying modeled reductions in LOS or complication rates by observed average volumes for medium-sized facilities, and by average cost per day or per complication (LOS: US$2383/day; complications: derived from observed charges).ResultsAcross all surgery types, LOS showed an average reduction of 18.5% (10.7–32.0%) for the modeled scenario of reducing opioids by one level (high to medium, medium to low, or low to none) and adding IV APAP, with an associated total LOS-related cost savings of $4.5 M. Modeled opioid-related complication rates showed similar improvements, averaging a reduction of 28.7% (5.4–44.0%) with associated cost savings of $0.2 M. In aggregate, costs decreased by an estimated $4.7 M for a medium-sized hospital. The study design demonstrates associations only and cannot establish causal relationships. The cost impact of LOS is modeled based on observed data.ConclusionsThis investigation indicates that reducing opioid use and including IV APAP for postoperative pain management has the potential to decrease LOS, opioid-related complication rates, and costs from a hospital perspective.FundingMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

IntroductionTo assess the impact on hospitalization costs of multimodal analgesia (MMA), including intravenous acetaminophen (IV-APAP), versus IV opioid monotherapy for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.MethodsUtilizing the Truven Health MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database (HDD), patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or surgical repair of hip fracture between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2014 were separated into postoperative pain management groups: MMA with IV-APAP plus other IV analgesics (IV-APAP group) or an IV opioid monotherapy group. All patients could have received oral analgesics. Baseline characteristics and total hospitalization costs were compared. Additionally, an inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] with propensity scores analysis further assessed hospitalization cost differences.ResultsThe IV-APAP group (n = 33,954) and IV opioid monotherapy group (n = 110,300) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) across baseline characteristics, though the differences may not have been clinically meaningful. Total hospitalization costs (mean ± standard deviation) were significantly lower for the IV-APAP group than the IV opioid monotherapy group (US$12,540 ± $9564 vs. $13,242 ± $35,825; P < 0.0001). Medical costs accounted for $701 of the $702 between-group difference. Pharmacy costs were similar between groups. Results of the IPTW-adjusted analysis further supported the statistically significant cost difference.ConclusionsPatients undergoing orthopedic surgery who received MMA for postoperative pain management, including IV-APAP, had significantly lower total costs than patients who received IV opioid monotherapy. This difference was driven by medical costs; importantly, there was no difference in pharmacy costs. Generalizability of the results may be limited to patients admitted to hospitals similar to those included in HDD. Dosing could not be determined, so it was not possible to quantify utilization of IV-APAP or ascertain differences in opioid consumption between the 2 groups. This study did not account for healthcare utilization post-discharge.

No abstract

Background Beliefs of an individual about health conditions can play an important role in contributing to their behavior concerning good and bad health practices. The aim of this study was to develop and assess a set of vaccination belief scales in relation to COVID-19 vaccines. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted between July 2020 and January 2021 using a systematic random sampling of 425 adult outpatients at two hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. An instrument was designed based on the dimensional structure and wording of the health belief model (HBM), which was followed by the assessment of the instrument’s internal consistency and the construct validity. Results The 15-item instrument showed the content validity index (CVI) of scales reached a value of 1.0. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the first sample (n = 170) and extracted 12 out of 15 draft items in a four-factor model (threat of disease, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues to action) that accounted for 68.3% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.765 showed as satisfactory. Following this, the confirmatory factor analysis in the remaining sample (n = 255) found a good fit between a four-factor model and a theoretical model of HBM with acceptable values of fit indices. Conclusion Beliefs scales for COVID-19 vaccination have been determined to be valid and reliable. They can be a helpful instrument for health educators to use for assessing immunization beliefs of individuals and the public where there is the need to implement new vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccine, before they are used more widely across the community.