Évaluation d'une structure gériatrique entre l'ambulatoire et l'hospitalier [Geriatric institutions, between ambulatory and hospital care: patients' description and performance assessment].

Introduction : Décrire les patients d'une structure gériatrique offrant des hospitalisations de courte durée, dans un contexte ambulatoire, pour des situations gériatriques courantes dans le canton de Genève (Suisse). Mesurer les performances de cette structure en termes de qualité des soins et de coûts. Méthodes : Des données relatives au profil des 100 premiers patients ont été collectées (huit mois), ainsi qu'aux prestations, aux ressources et aux effets (réadmissions, décès, satisfaction, complications) de manière à mesurer différents indicateurs de qualité et de coûts. Les valeurs observées ont été systématiquement comparées aux valeurs attendues, calculées à partir du profil des patients. Résultats : Des critères d'admission ont été fixés pour exclure les situations dans lesquelles d'autres structures offrent des soins mieux adaptés. La spécificité de cette structure intermédiaire a été d'assurer une continuité des soins et d'organiser d'emblée le retour à domicile par des prestations de liaison ambulatoire. La faible occurrence des réadmissions potentiellement évitables, une bonne satisfaction des patients, l'absence de décès prématurés et le faible nombre de complications suggèrent que les soins médicaux et infirmiers ont été délivrés avec une bonne qualité. Le coût s'est révélé nettement plus économique que des séjours hospitaliers après ajustement pour la lourdeur des cas. Conclusion : L'expérience-pilote a démontré la faisabilité et l'utilité d'une unité d'hébergement et d'hospitalisation de court séjour en toute sécurité. Le suivi du patient par le médecin traitant assure une continuité des soins et évite la perte d'information lors des transitions ainsi que les examens non pertinents. INTRODUCTION: To describe patients admitted to a geriatric institution, providing short-term hospitalizations in the context of ambulatory care in the canton of Geneva. To measure the performances of this structure in terms of quality ofcare and costs. METHOD: Data related to the clinical,functioning and participation profiles of the first 100 patients were collected. Data related to effects (readmission, deaths, satisfaction, complications), services and resources were also documented over an 8-month period to measure various quality and costindicators. Observed values were systematically compared to expected values, adjusted for case mix. RESULTS: Explicit criteria were proposed to focus on the suitable patients, excluding situations in which other structures were considered to be more appropriate. The specificity of this intermediate structure was to immediately organize, upon discharge, outpatient services at home. The low rate of potentially avoidable readmissions, the high patient satisfaction scores, the absence of premature death and the low number of iatrogenic complications suggest that medical and nursing care delivered reflect a good quality of services. The cost was significantly lower than expected, after adjusting for case mix. CONCLUSION: The pilot experience showed that a short-stay hospitalization unit was feasible with acceptable security conditions. The attending physician's knowledge of the patients allowed this system tofocus on essential issues without proposing inappropriate services.

Impact of enhanced compliance initiatives on the efficacy of rosuvastatin in reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia.

The effectiveness of lipid-lowering medication critically depends on the patients' compliance and the efficacy of the prescribed drug. The primary objective of this multicentre study was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with or without access to compliance initiatives, in bringing patients to the Joint European Task Force's (1998) recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level goal (LDL-C, <3.0 mmol/L) at week 24. Secondary objectives were comparison of the number and percentage of patients achieving European goals (1998, 2003) for LDL-C and other lipid parameters. Patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia and a 10-year coronary heart disease risk of >20% received open label rosuvastatin treatment for 24 weeks with or without access to compliance enhancement tools. The initial daily dosage of 10 mg could be doubled at week 12. Compliance tools included: a) a starter pack for subjects containing a videotape, an educational leaflet, a passport/goal diary and details of the helpline and/or website; b) regular personalised letters to provide message reinforcement; c) a toll-free helpline and a website. The majority of patients (67%) achieved the 1998 European goal for LDL-C at week 24. 31% required an increase in dosage of rosuvastatin to 20 mg at week 12. Compliance enhancement tools did not increase the number of patients achieving either the 1998 or the 2003 European target for plasma lipids. Rosuvastatin was well tolerated during this study. The safety profile was comparable with other drugs of the same class. 63 patients in the 10 mg group and 58 in the 10 mg Plus group discontinued treatment. The main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (39 patients in the 10 mg group; 35 patients in the 10 mg Plus group) and loss to follow-up (13 patients in the 10 mg group; 9 patients in the 10 mg Plus group). The two most frequently reported adverse events were myalgia (34 patients, 3% respectively) and back pain (23 patients, 2% respectively). The overall rate of temporary or permanent study discontinuation due to adverse events was 9% (n = 101) in patients receiving 10 mg rosuvastatin and 3% (n = 9) in patients titrated up to 20 mg rosuvastatin. Rosuvastatin was effective in lowering LDL-C values in patients with hypercholesterolaemia to the 1998 European target at week 24. However, compliance enhancement tools did not increase the number of patients achieving any European targets for plasma lipids.