A program for integral, transversal, and multidisciplinary management of aortic stenosis (MITMEVA) is being implemented at the Clinic Barcelona University Hospital (CBUH) to provide adequate treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Eleven actions at different care points were implemented (e.g., awareness raising for the general population, a single entry path for patient referral, prehabilitation and rehabilitation, and a risk-sharing agreement). Preliminary results are presented.

A before-and-after implementation study was conducted with 131 patients under MITMEVA and 131 matched (for treatment, New York Heart Association classification, sex, age, and referral place) historical controls. Data were collected on resources used and quality of life and to calculate several key performance indicators (KPIs) (e.g., knowledge improvement in citizens, time from diagnosis to treatment, and patient involvement and satisfaction) for each implemented action. A descriptive analysis of KPIs and a Markov model were performed to simulate clinical and economic outcomes for patient health states over time after the first year until the tenth year after intervention.

The MITMEVA program increased quality-adjusted life-years by 1.78 (p=0.011) and reduced time from referral to first hospital visit by 24.7 percent (p=0.05), hospital complications by 19.7 percent (p=0.05), mean conventional ward stay from 12.8 to 8 days (p=0.01), and mean intensive care unit stay from 9.75 to 4.25 days, although the latter difference was not statistically significant (p=0.139). The mean cost per patient was reduced from EUR7,573.27 per patient to EUR6,024.61 per patient (p=0.01). The MITMEVA program was a dominant strategy. There was a 46 percent increase in correct AS symptom identification after delivering training on AS to the general population.

Integrated care approaches can potentially improve patient continuum of care if the strategies are deployed in a multidisciplinary and transversal way across healthcare actors. The MITMEVA program significantly improved clinical and economic outcomes and organization of care, benefiting patients and clinicians. Applying health technology assessment methods to such innovative projects can help prove the value of organizational innovations.

A program for integral, transversal, and multidisciplinary management of aortic stenosis (MITMEVA) was implemented at the Clinic Barcelona University Hospital to provide adequate and personalized treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). MITMEVA includes 11 actions in the AS care pathway. This study aimed to test the scalability of MITMEVA by gathering the perspectives of relevant stakeholders in two other Catalan hospitals.

A mixed method study design was used to collect and analyze the views of relevant stakeholders on the scalability of the MITMEVA project. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to answer the research question. All participants were interviewed individually using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed by performing a content analysis with Atlas.ti software. Quantitative data were gathered and analyzed by adjusting the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT).

Nine participants were interviewed from two tertiary hospitals in Catalonia and eight ISAT questionnaires were completed. From the content analysis, 11 of the 15 themes identified related to actions implemented in the MITMEVA program. The results pointed toward a positive view of implementation of the MITMEVA program in general, showing a good scalability for all the ISAT domains. On a scale of zero to three, most domains were scored two or above.

The qualitative and quantitative results indicated that the MITMEVA program has potential for scaling up to other Catalan hospitals to improve the management of AS. Generally, stakeholders from the two participating hospitals were positive about the project. However, small adjustments will be needed to account for the culture and organizational characteristics of the hospitals when scaling up the MITMEVA program.

Interest in early detection of complications in hospitals has increased recently. Complications after elective or urgent surgery are frequent and are associated with higher mortality rates, longer hospital stays, and more resource utilization. The ZERO project implemented an educational nursing program and developed an innovative algorithm that assesses a patient’s complication risk based on clinical parameters to prevent complications and reduce hospital burden. Our aim was to present the results from one year of implementing ZERO at the Clinic Barcelona University Hospital.

A comparative effectiveness and cost study was conducted. Data from patients admitted after elective or urgent surgery were collected for one year retrospectively (n=8,844 from January 2019 to December 2019) and prospectively (ZERO) (n=8,163 from October 2021 to October 2022). Effectiveness was measured in terms of mortality, complications, and life-years gained (LYG). Length of stay (LoS) at conventional, intermediate, and intensive care units and rates of readmissions were collected for resource use. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. The t-test and Wilcoxon test were used for normally and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively.

There was a significant decrease in the rate of complications (7.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.46, -7.19; p<0.001) with ZERO. Moreover, there were statistically significant reductions in mean LoS for readmissions to conventional wards (-5.04 days, 95%CI: -9.9, -0.18; p=0.04) and to the intensive care ward within the same episode (-4.68 days, 95%CI: -9.26, -0.14; p=0.02). The mean cost per patient was EUR2,772.92 and EUR2,591.57 before and after ZERO implementation, respectively. After accounting for the cost of implementing ZERO, there was a cost saving of EUR147.76 per patient (p=0.048), which yielded a yearly impact of EUR1,206,165 for the hospital budget.

This one-year analysis of the effect of ZERO on surgical patients shows that it decreases complication rates and all types of LoS, leading to overall cost savings for the hospital.

Limited knowledge of the symptomatology of aortic stenosis (AS) among the general population may delay diagnosis and have a major impact on morbidity and resource use. Training programs have often been advocated by the scientific community. The present study reported the results of an assessment of a training program for the general population.

Patients who attended healthcare centers were asked to answer a questionnaire on their level of knowledge around AS. A cohort of patients without training (n=681) answered the questionnaire and a second cohort answered the questionnaire via phone 24 hours after training (n=197). Propensity score matching by sex and age was used to obtain a balanced sample between the two cohorts, giving a total study sample of 394 individuals (197 without training and 197 with training). A descriptive analysis was performed to compare differences in the level of knowledge between the two cohorts. Predictors of AS symptomatology were identified using multivariate logistic regression.

The trained cohort was more aware of AS disease than the untrained cohort (79% versus 31%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.56; p<0.001). They were also better at distinguishing the symptoms associated with AS (80% versus 43%, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.48, p<0.001) and were more aware of its severity (36% versus 12%; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.32, p<0.001). Moreover, the trained cohort were better at identifying symptoms that should make them consider visiting a doctor (76% versus 65%; 95% CI 0.02, 0.20, p<0.02). No differences were observed in level of concern regarding AS (8% versus 4%; 95% CI: -0.0046, 0.09, p=0.08).

The trained people who were aware of AS (p=0.04) correctly classified AS as a valvular disease (p=0.025), would seek medical consultation when AS symptoms occurred (p=0.04), and were more likely to correctly detect AS symptoms.

The training program significantly improved the knowledge and awareness of AS in the general population. This can improve the timeliness of AS diagnosis, reducing the health and economic burden of AS for the healthcare system.

The assessment of current technologies needs a more holistic approach to obtain accurate recommendations for decision-making. The VALues In Doing Assessments of health TEchnologies (VALIDATE) methodology considers that facts and values from all stakeholders need to be included in the scoping of an assessment to gather the comprehensive information needed for unbiased decision-making. This report aimed to explore how to properly assess the integrated care of patients with aortic valve stenosis (AVS) using the VALIDATE approach.

A literature review was conducted, and 11 semi-structured interviews were performed with various hospital-based healthcare professionals (cardiac surgeon, clinical cardiologist, interventional cardiologist, anesthetist, process coordinator nurse, and others) and patients. Content analysis was used for data analysis and integration.

The literature review showed that the cardiology and cardiac surgery perspectives were dominant in 90 percent of the articles and present in the remaining ten percent. The perspectives of other specialties (anesthesiology, primary care, and psychology) were included in three percent of the articles and patient perspectives were included in nine percent. Interviewing and considering the perspectives of the different stakeholders involved in the care pathway identified the following indicators that should be included in the assessment care for patients with AVS: difficulties associated with late diagnosis of AVS; the need to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach in patient risk assessment; the importance of geriatric evaluations; considering patient (and family and caregiver) preferences for type of treatment; the importance of following up pharmaceutical treatment and palliative care; use of telemonitoring; and digital exclusion of patients with respect to the use of apps for prehabilitation and rehabilitation.

The stakeholders interviewed were involved in different steps of the care pathway and had differing needs, some of which were not found in the literature. The indicators suggested for inclusion in the assessment differed according to type of stakeholder and their involvement in the care pathway. Therefore, this case study exemplifies the VALIDATE method and endorses the need for multistakeholder involvement in eliciting values when scoping the assessment of a complex technology.

In the past decade, health technology assessment (HTA) has narrowed its scope to analyses of mainly clinical and economic benefits. Technology challenges in the 21st century emphasize the need for holistic assessments to obtain accurate recommendations for decision-making, as in HTA’s foundations. Using the VALues In Doing Assessments of health TEchnologies (VALIDATE) methodology for complex technologies provides a deeper understanding of problems through analysis of stakeholders’ views, allowing for more comprehensive HTAs. This study aimed to assess a pharmaceutical clinical decision support system (CDSS) using VALIDATE.

Semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders were conducted in the following domains: problem definition (medication error [ME] occurrence and prevention); judgement of solution (existing preventive methods and previous experiences of the CDSS); background theories (future impact and personal beliefs); and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. The following individuals were interviewed: medical informatic specialists (n=3), pharmacists (n=2), nurses (n=2), physicians (n=2), CDSS company representatives (n=1), electronic health record developer (n=1), and health consultancy firm representatives (n=1). Content analysis was used to integrate and analyze the data.

The multistakeholder interviews identified various barriers to the acceptance and implementation of a pharmaceutical CDSS that were different from those reported in the literature. These included: (i) occurrence of ME (no traceability of medication taken or poor patient medication empowerment); (ii) perception of current level of MEs (huge improvement from ten years ago); (iii) perception of technology as a tool to prevent ME (not enough if only implemented at one point of care); (iv) previous experiences with a CDSS (low rates of development of CDSSs are due to medication prescriptions being digitalized last in hospitals); (v) CDSS metrics (input data should be measured to control CDSS performance); and (vi) other barriers.

Including facts and stakeholders’ values in problem definition and the scoping of health technologies is essential for the proper conduct of HTAs. Incorporating views from multiple stakeholders when scoping the assessment of health technologies brings additional values to literature findings, resulting in a more holistic evaluation. The lack of multistakeholder scoping can lead to inaccurate information and result in wrong decisions about if, when, and how to adopt a CDSS.

The performance of diagnostic health technologies is usually assessed by comparing them with standard care using the kappa statistic. These comparisons are made based on comprehensive clinical information (e.g., anamnesis and complementary tests). However, not all digital applications (DAs) execute over complete information, which leads to work under non-uniform distribution of values. Using kappa statistic in this situation has serious methodological limitations. Kappa assumes that the marginal values are uniformly distributed and highly weights the discordant values when calculating concordance, which underestimates the real effectiveness of DAs (i.e., observed concordance). We aimed to present the application of the B statistic to WtsWrng, a symptom triage DA for individuals.

WtsWrng was used by 382 patients at the emergency department of a hospital. Diagnoses provided by WtsWrng, given 19 symptoms, were compared with those logged in the hospital’s electronic clinical records at discharge. Observed concordance was calculated using contingency tables. The concordance using the kappa and B statistics were compared for the 12 most frequent diagnoses at hospital discharge. Sensitivity and specificity were also calculated.

Real observed concordance fluctuated from 0.4 to 0.98 for the 12 most frequent diagnoses, eight of which had a concordance greater than 0.8. The results ranged from -0.005 to 0.37 when using the kappa statistic and from 0.36 to 0.99 when using the B statistic. The sensitivity and specificity of WtsWrng were greater than 0.8 for three and eight of the 12 diagnoses, respectively.

The results show that the B statistic is closer to the real observed concordance when kappa statistic assumptions are not fulfilled by a DA. Therefore, the B statistic is better suited for assessing the effectiveness of this type of technology. Analysis of WtsWrng using the B statistic showed that its diagnoses were close to those provided by clinicians, which were arrived at using complete clinical information. Moreover, the high specificity of the WtsWrng DA suggests that it is a good tool for determining the appropriate use of healthcare resources.

In the past decade, health technology assessment (HTA) has narrowed its scope to the analysis of mainly clinical and economic benefits. However, twenty-first century technology challenges require the need for more holistic assessments to obtain accurate recommendations for decision-making, as it was in HTA's foundations. VALues In Doing Assessments of health TEchnologies (VALIDATE) methodology approaches complex technologies holistically to provide a deeper understanding of the problem through analysis of the heterogeneity of stakeholders’ views, allowing for more comprehensive HTAs. This study aimed to assess a pharmaceutical clinical decision support system (CDSS) using VALIDATE.

A systematic review of the empirical evidence on CDSS was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for literature published between 2000 and 2020. Additionally, a review of grey literature and semi-structured interviews with different hospital stakeholders (pharmacists, physicians, computer engineers, etc.) were conducted. Content analysis was used for data integration.

Preliminary literature results indicated consensus regarding the effectiveness of CDSS. Nevertheless, when including multistakeholder views, CDSS appeared to not be fully accepted in clinical practice. The main reasons for this appeared to be alert fatigue and disruption of workflow. Preliminary results based on information from the literature were contrasted with stakeholder interview responses.

Incorporation of facts and stakeholder values into the problem definition and scoping for a health technology is essential to properly conduct HTAs. The lack of an inclusive multistakeholder scoping can lead to inaccurate information, and in this particular case to suboptimal CDSS implementation concerning decision-making for the technology being evaluated.