Outpatient Quick Diagnosis Units for the evaluation of suspected severe diseases: an observational, descriptive study

Background: Hospitals in countries with public health systems have recently adopted organizational changes to improve efficiency and resource allocation, and reducing inappropriate hospitalizations has been established as an important goal. AIMS: Our goal was to describe the functioning of a Quick Diagnosis Unit in a Spanish public university hospital after evaluating 1,000 consecutive patients. We also aimed to ascertain the degree of satisfaction among Quick Diagnosis Unit patients and the costs of the model compared to conventional hospitalization practices. DESIGN: Observational, descriptive study. METHODS: Our sample comprised 1,000 patients evaluated between November 2008 and January 2010 in the Quick Diagnosis Unit of a tertiary university public hospital in Barcelona. Included patients were those who had potentially severe diseases and would normally require hospital admission for diagnosis but whose general condition allowed outpatient treatment. We analyzed several variables, including time to diagnosis, final diagnoses and hospitalizations avoided, and we also investigated the mean cost (as compared to conventional hospitalization) and the patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: In 88% of cases, the reasons for consultation were anemia, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, febrile syndrome, adenopathies, abdominal pain, chronic diarrhea and lung abnormalities. The most frequent diagnoses were cancer (18.8%; mainly colon cancer and lymphoma) and Iron-deficiency anemia (18%). The mean time to diagnosis was 9.2 days (range 1 to 19 days). An estimated 12.5 admissions/day in a one-year period (in the internal medicine department) were avoided. In a subgroup analysis, the mean cost per process (admission-discharge) for a conventional hospitalization was 3,416.13 Euros, while it was 735.65 Euros in the Quick Diagnosis Unit. Patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with Quick Diagnosis Unit care. CONCLUSIONS: Quick Diagnosis Units represent a useful and cost-saving model for the diagnostic study of patients with potentially severe diseases. Future randomized study designs involving comparisons between controls and intervention groups would help elucidate the usefulness of Quick Diagnosis Units as an alternative to conventional hospitalization.

Predictors of remission in the treatment of major depressive disorder: real-world evidence from a 6-month prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: This study examined potential predictors of remission among patients treated for major depressive disorder (MDD) in a naturalistic clinical setting, mostly in the Middle East, East Asia, and Mexico. METHODS: Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 6-month prospective, noninterventional, observational study that involved 1,549 MDD patients without sexual dysfunction at baseline in 12 countries worldwide. Depression severity was measured using the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Depression-related pain was measured using the pain-related items of the Somatic Symptom Inventory. Remission was defined as a QIDS-SR16 score ≤5. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to examine baseline factors associated with remission during follow-up. RESULTS: Being from East Asia (odds ratio [OR] 0.48 versus Mexico; P<0.001), a higher level of depression severity at baseline (OR 0.77, P=0.003, for Clinical Global Impression of Severity; OR 0.92, P<0.001, for QIDS-SR16), more previous MDD episodes (OR 0.92, P=0.007), previous treatments/therapies for depression (OR 0.78, P=0.030), and having any significant psychiatric and medical comorbidity at baseline (OR 0.60, P<0.001) were negatively associated with remission, whereas being male (OR 1.29, P=0.026) and treatment with duloxetine (OR 2.38 versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, P<0.001) were positively associated with remission. However, the association between Somatic Symptom Inventory pain scores and remission no longer appeared to be significant in this multiple regression (P=0.580), (P=0.008 in descriptive statistics), although it remained significant in a subgroup of patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (OR 0.97, P=0.023), but not in those treated with duloxetine (P=0.182). CONCLUSION: These findings are largely consistent with previous reports from the USA and Europe. They also highlight the potential mediating role of treatment with duloxetine on the negative relationship between depression-related pain and outcomes of depression.