Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare 2 clinical assessment tools, the Modified Barthel Index (currently administered to patients admitted into inpatient rehabilitation units after elective hip or knee arthroplasty) with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 scale, in order to identify which tool is more suitable for assessing the disability and the “recovery rate”. Patients and methods: A perspective multicenter observational study was developed, involving 2 hospital authorities in Italy. Eighty consecutive cases of inpatients were enrolled. Patient’s disability was evaluated using both of the aforementioned tools, before and after the rehabilitation program. Results: The WHODAS 2.0 score was, on average, 12.21% higher than the Modified Barthel Index, before the surgical intervention. Modified Barthel Index measures could be considered as a determinant and a predictor of length of stay. Conclusion: The Modified Barthel Index is limited, since it does not consider a patient’s perspective. The WHODAS 2.0 scale fully considers a patient’s perception of disability. Therefore, both assessment scales should be administered in clinical practice, in order to provide integration of clinical information with a patient’s reported outcome measures.

The present article describes the case study of a “real world” HIV practice within the debate concerning the strategic role of Clinical Governance (CG) tools in the management of a National Healthcare System’s sustainability. The study aimed at assessing the impact of a Clinical Pathway (CP) implementation, required by the Regional Healthcare Service, in terms of effectiveness (virological and immunological conditions) and efficiency (economic resources absorption), from the budget holder perspective. Data derived from a multi-centre cohort of patients treated in 6 Hospitals that provided care to approximately 42% of the total HIV+ patients, in Lombardy Region, Italy. Two phases were compared: Pre-CP (2009–2010) vs. Post-CP implementation (2011–2012). All HIV infected adults, observed in the participating hospitals during the study periods, were enrolled and stratified into the 3 categories defined by the Regional CP: first-line, switch for toxicity/other, and switch for failure. The study population was composed of 1,284 patients (Pre-CP phase) and 1,135 patients (Post-CP phase). The results showed that the same level of virological and immunological effectiveness was guaranteed to HIV+ patients: 81.2% of Pre-CP phase population and 83.2% of Post-CP phase population had undetectable HIV-RNA (defined as <50 copies/mL) at 12-month follow up. CD4⁺ cell counts increased by 28 ± 4 cells/mm³ in Pre-CP Phase and 39 ± 5 cells/mm³ in Post-CP Phase. From an economic point of view, the CP implementation led to a substantial advantage: the mean total costs related to the management of the HIV disease (ART, hospital admission and laboratory tests) decreased (-8.60%) in the Post-CP phase (p-value < 0.0001). Results confirmed that the CP provided appropriateness and quality of care, with a cost reduction for the budget holder.

The present study aims at defining the economic and organizational impacts of the introduction of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) in Italy, for the management of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients in third-line therapy, defining the overall level of sustainability for both hospitals and the National Healthcare System (NHS). The analysis focused on CAR-T and Best Salvage Care (in the following BSC), assuming the Italian hospital and NHS perspectives, over a 36-month time horizon. Process mapping and activity-based costing methodologies were applied to collect the hospital costs related to the BSC and CAR-T pathways, including adverse event management. Anonymous administrative data on services provided (diagnostic and laboratory examinations, hospitalizations, outpatient procedures, and therapies) to 47 third-line patients with lymphoma, as well as any organizational investments required, were collected, in two different Italian Hospitals. The economic results showed that the BSC clinical pathway required less resources in comparison with CAR-T (excluding the cost related to the therapy) (BSC: 29,558.41 vs. CAR-T: EUR 71,220.84, −58.5%). The budget impact analysis depicts that the introduction of CAR-T would generate an increase in costs ranging from 15% to 23%, without considering treatment costs. The assessment of the organizational impact reveals that the introduction of CAR-T therapy would require additional investments equal to a minimum of EUR 15,500 to a maximum of EUR 100,897.49, from the hospital perspective. Results show new economic evidence for healthcare decision makers, to optimize the appropriateness of resource allocation. The present analysis suggests the need to introduce a specific reimbursement tariff, both at the hospital and at NHS levels, since no consensus exists, at least in the Italian setting, concerning the proper remuneration for the hospitals who guarantee this innovative pathway, assuming high risks related to timely management of adverse events.

Background: Automated Drug Dispensing (ADD) systems are considered to be strategic hospital assets used to reduce errors and enhance economic and organizational sustainability. With regards to efficacy and safety, the literature evidence demonstrates the incremental benefits of centralised or decentralised systems compared to manual dispensing. Analyses about organisational and economic sustainability are still lacking and the present study aims to perform a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), producing multidimensional evidence on the use of ADD systems within hospitals. Methods: In 2023, a comprehensive HTA draws insights from healthcare professionals across six European nations: Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. This appraisal juxtaposed four drug dispensing scenarios: manual methods, centralized ADD systems, decentralized ADD systems, and integrated solutions employing cutting-edge technologies in both central pharmacies and wards. The study deployed an Activity-Based Costing approach that was combined with a cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis to evaluate economic impacts. Qualitative questionnaires were implemented to assess ethical, legal, organizational, safety, and efficacy aspects. Results: From a multidimensional perspective, healthcare professionals acknowledged ADD manifold advantages of ADD systems. From an organizational perspective and within a 12-month timeframe, transitioning to automation may face initial challenges that are attributed to potential resistance from professionals and significant investments. However, 36 months past its adoption, automation’s superiority over manual methods was recognized. Economically, savings burgeoned from +17.9% in UK to +26.6% in Belgian hospitals that adopted integrated systems in comparison to traditional manual approaches. Conclusion: Compared to traditional methods, implementing ADD systems could improve the logistic management of drug in the hospital setting, thereby enhancing safety and efficacy, streamlining the healthcare professionals’ workflow, and bolstering financial stability.

Although mammography screening significantly reduces breast cancer mortality, women could present different morphological characteristics that do not allow the correct vision of their breasts and the detection of cancer, resulting in a delay of diagnosis and an increase in the risk of mortality. The present study aims at analyzing potential areas of improvement of the current screening programs and then hypothesizing alternative technologies to use within the diagnostic phase, from an economic point of view. A Budget Impact Analysis approach was implemented, considering the Italian National Healthcare Service perspective, and representing the healthcare expenditure evolution, over three years. In the Budget Impact Analysis model, two distinct phases of the screening programs were considered: (1) the screening/diagnosis phase and (2) the phase related to cancer care and treatments of patients. The results provide clinicians and policy makers with a rational method to forecast economic resources in the screening programs in a general context of limited resources. In particular, results of the Budget Impact Analysis showed that, while the introduction of the ABUS InveniaTM technology into the screening programs would lead to an increase in the screening phase expenditure, it would generate an economic advantage related to the patients treatment and care.