No abstract

ObjectivesHomeless people lack a secure, stable place to live and experience higher rates of serious illness than the housed population. Studies, mainly from the USA, have reported increased use of unscheduled healthcare by homeless individuals.We sought to compare the use of unscheduled emergency department (ED) and inpatient care between housed and homeless hospital patients in a high-income European setting in Dublin, Ireland.SettingA large university teaching hospital serving the south inner city in Dublin, Ireland. Patient data are collected on an electronic patient record within the hospital.ParticipantsWe carried out an observational cross-sectional study using data on all ED visits (n=47 174) and all unscheduled admissions under the general medical take (n=7031) in 2015.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe address field of the hospital’s electronic patient record was used to identify patients living in emergency accommodation or rough sleeping (hereafter referred to as homeless). Data on demographic details, length of stay and diagnoses were extracted.ResultsIn comparison with housed individuals in the hospital catchment area, homeless individuals had higher rates of ED attendance (0.16 attendances per person/annum vs 3.0 attendances per person/annum, respectively) and inpatient bed days (0.3 vs 4.4 bed days/person/annum). The rate of leaving ED before assessment was higher in homeless individuals (40% of ED attendances vs 15% of ED attendances in housed individuals). The mean age of homeless medical inpatients was 44.19 years (95% CI 42.98 to 45.40), whereas that of housed patients was 61.20 years (95% CI 60.72 to 61.68). Homeless patients were more likely to terminate an inpatient admission against medical advice (15% of admissions vs 2% of admissions in homeless individuals).ConclusionHomeless patients represent a significant proportion of ED attendees and medical inpatients. In contrast to housed patients, the bulk of usage of unscheduled care by homeless people occurs in individuals aged 25–65 years.

Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) was first reported in 1972. OPAT programmes are not well established in Ireland, with no reported outcomes in the literature. An OPAT programme was established at St. James Hospital in 2006. Demographics, diagnoses and outcomes of the first 60 courses are reported. A retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data was performed on patients treated from March 2006 to February 2009. The data was analysed using SPSS v.17. Sixty OPAT courses were administered to 56 patients, 57 percent of which were male. The median age was 50 years, the median inpatient stay was 19 days, the median duration of OPAT was 16 days and 1,289 inpatient bed days were saved. The additional cost per day of OPAT was 167.60 euros. Vancomycin was the most prescribed antimicrobial, administered to 35%. Musculoskeletal infection was the indication for treatment in 50%. Confirmatory microbiological diagnosis was identified in 72%, most frequently due to Staphylococcus aureus (68%). Only minor adverse events were recorded. Clinical cure was achieved in 92.8%. A patient satisfaction survey showed high satisfaction. OPAT is a safe and effective way of providing parenteral antibiotic therapy in the Irish healthcare system. Better integration of funding and the appointment of Infectious Diseases specialists will facilitate its expansion.

Telaprevir had greater relative efficacy than boceprevir in patients who had previously relapsed. There was insufficient evidence to detect a difference in treatment outcomes between the 2 agents in the overall population. It was not possible to determine relative efficacy for subgroups such as patients with cirrhosis owing to small numbers.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of the current Irish programme of universal BCG vaccination of infants versus a programme which considered selectively vaccinating high risk infants using decision analytical modelling.MethodsThe efficacy of the BCG vaccine was re-evaluated to inform a decision analytical model constructed to follow a birth cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated infants over a 15 year time horizon. The number of life years gained (LYG) was the primary outcome measure and this was compared to the net cost of the vaccination strategies.ResultsIn the base case analysis, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the universal strategy and selective strategy vs no vaccination were €204,373/LYG and €143,233/LYG respectively. When comparing the incremental difference in moving from the universal to the selective strategy, the selective strategy costs €1,055,692 less per 4.8 life years lost per birth cohort. One way sensitivity analyses highlighted that a move from the universal to the selective strategy was particularly sensitive to the estimate of vaccine efficacy against deaths, the cost of administering the vaccine and the multiplier used to apportion risk of contracting tuberculosis. Probabilistic analysis suggested that a move from a universal based strategy to a selective based strategy could be deemed cost effective (probability of cost effectiveness is 76.8 %).ConclusionThe results of the study support the protective effect of the BCG vaccine in infants and quantified the cost effectiveness of the current BCG vaccination strategy and the decremental difference in moving to a selective strategy. This analysis highlights that the additional protection offered by the universal vaccination strategy is small compared to that of the selective strategy. Consideration should therefore be given to the implementation of a selective vaccination strategy, and diverting resources to improve TB case management and control.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13690-016-0141-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.