Seasonal influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality and has a substantial economic impact on the healthcare system. The main objective of this study was to compare the cost per patient for a rapid commercial PCR assay (Xpert^® Flu) with an in-house real-time PCR test for detecting influenza virus. Community patients with influenza like-illness attending the Emergency Department (ED) as well as hospitalized patients in the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona were included. Costs were evaluated from the perspective of the hospital considering the use of resources directly related to influenza testing and treatment. For the purpose of this study, 366 and 691 patients were tested in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The Xpert^® Flu test reduced the mean waiting time for patients in the ED by 9.1 hours and decreased the mean isolation time of hospitalized patients by 23.7 hours. This was associated with a 103€ (or about $113) reduction in the cost per patient tested in the ED and 64€ ($70) per hospitalized patient. Sensitivity analyses showed that Xpert^® Flu is likely to be cost-saving in hospitals with different contexts and prices.

Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy is a cause of pregnancy loss and multiple clinical and neurological anomalies in children. This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of ZIKV exposure in utero on the long-term neurodevelopment of normocephalic children born to women with ZIKV infection in pregnancy. This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate the cross-study prevalence of neurodevelopmental delays in children using the Bayley Scales for Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Full-text reviews were performed for 566 articles, and data were extracted from 22 articles corresponding to 20 studies. Nine articles including data from 476 children found 6.5% (95% CI: 4.1–9.3) of infants and children to have any type of non-language cognitive delay; 29.7% (95% CI: 21.7–38.2) to have language delay; and 11.5% (95% CI: 4.8–20.1) to have any type of motor delay. The pooled estimates had a high level of heterogeneity; thus, results should be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies that include a non-exposed control group are needed to confirm whether ZIKV exposure in utero is associated with adverse child neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Background: Patients with proximal femur fracture on antiplatelet treatment benefit from early surgery. Our goal was to perform early surgery under neuraxial anaesthesia when indicated by the platelet function test. Methods: We conducted a multicentre randomised open-label parallel clinical trial. Patients were randomised to either early platelet function-guided surgery (experimental group) or delayed surgery (control group). Early surgery was programmed when the functional platelet count (as measured by Plateletworks) was >80 × 10⁹/L. The primary outcome was the emergency admission-to-surgery interval. Secondary outcomes were platelet function, postoperative bleeding, medical and surgical complications, and mortality. Results: A total of 156 patients were randomised, with 78 in each group, with a mean (SD) age of 85.96 (7.9) years, and 67.8% being female. The median (IQR) time to surgery was 2.3 (1.5–3.7) days for the experimental group and 4.9 (4.4–5.6) days for the control group. One-third of patients did not achieve the threshold functional platelet count on the first day of admission, requiring more than one test. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between groups. Conclusions: A strategy individualised according to the platelet function test shortens the time to proximal femur fracture surgery under neuraxial anaesthesia in patients on chronic antiplatelet treatment. Better powered randomised clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the clinical impact and safety of this strategy.

BACKGROUND The widespread adoption of mobile and wearable devices and apps makes it essential to assess their possible impact on the management of health and diseases. Health care providers (HCPs) find themselves faced with a new situation in their setting with the proliferation of mobile health (mHealth) intervention tests. Few studies have addressed the development of mHealth and the methodologies to manage these apps in a tertiary hospital. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the mHealth projects implemented in the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona to increase awareness of the context in which they are used and to develop policies for the development of good practice in mHealth innovation. METHODS A prospective, descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in a highly specialized university hospital with 850 beds for adults and a reference population of 520,000 inhabitants. A specific questionnaire was developed based on the Mobile Health 5 Dimensions European (MOHE 5D-EU) theoretical model to find mHealth projects. Apps, telemedicine, and wearable devices were included in the systematic search. For that purpose, a vertical (top-down) email-based snowball process was conducted. Data were collected from February to December 2018 by conducting personal interviews with HCPs using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS During the study period, 45 interviews were conducted; 35 mHealth initiatives were found, with 25 targeted to patients and 10 to health professionals. Most mHealth initiatives (34/35, 97%) were related to the software field (apps and telemedicine initiatives), and one was related to wearable devices. Among the projects, 68% (24/35) were classified as medical devices or developments at the edge (developments susceptible to limitations depending on the intended use). In relation to data protection, 27 initiatives managing personal data (27/35, 77%) considered data protection legislation. Only 9% (3/35) of the initiatives had foreseen the use of interconnectivity standards. Most of the initiatives were funded by grants (14/35, 40%), sponsorships (5/35, 14%), or the hospital itself (5/35, 14%). In terms of clinical management, most projects were developed in the field of research, followed by professional tools, clinical information, and therapeutic education. Only 6 projects were involved with health care; all were led by either the industry or small and medium enterprises. CONCLUSIONS This study helped create the design of a map of the mHealth projects conducted in our hospital that showed the stages of development of the different ongoing projects. This will allow monitoring of mHealth projects and construction of tools to reinforce areas with detected deficiencies. Our theoretical approach using a modified MOHE 5D-EU model was found to be useful for analyzing the characteristics of mHealth projects.

Background The widespread adoption of mobile and wearable devices and apps makes it essential to assess their possible impact on the management of health and diseases. Health care providers (HCPs) find themselves faced with a new situation in their setting with the proliferation of mobile health (mHealth) intervention tests. Few studies have addressed the development of mHealth and the methodologies to manage these apps in a tertiary hospital. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the mHealth projects implemented in the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona to increase awareness of the context in which they are used and to develop policies for the development of good practice in mHealth innovation. Methods A prospective, descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in a highly specialized university hospital with 850 beds for adults and a reference population of 520,000 inhabitants. A specific questionnaire was developed based on the Mobile Health 5 Dimensions European (MOHE 5D-EU) theoretical model to find mHealth projects. Apps, telemedicine, and wearable devices were included in the systematic search. For that purpose, a vertical (top-down) email-based snowball process was conducted. Data were collected from February to December 2018 by conducting personal interviews with HCPs using a structured questionnaire. Results During the study period, 45 interviews were conducted; 35 mHealth initiatives were found, with 25 targeted to patients and 10 to health professionals. Most mHealth initiatives (34/35, 97%) were related to the software field (apps and telemedicine initiatives), and one was related to wearable devices. Among the projects, 68% (24/35) were classified as medical devices or developments at the edge (developments susceptible to limitations depending on the intended use). In relation to data protection, 27 initiatives managing personal data (27/35, 77%) considered data protection legislation. Only 9% (3/35) of the initiatives had foreseen the use of interconnectivity standards. Most of the initiatives were funded by grants (14/35, 40%), sponsorships (5/35, 14%), or the hospital itself (5/35, 14%). In terms of clinical management, most projects were developed in the field of research, followed by professional tools, clinical information, and therapeutic education. Only 6 projects were involved with health care; all were led by either the industry or small and medium enterprises. Conclusions This study helped create the design of a map of the mHealth projects conducted in our hospital that showed the stages of development of the different ongoing projects. This will allow monitoring of mHealth projects and construction of tools to reinforce areas with detected deficiencies. Our theoretical approach using a modified MOHE 5D-EU model was found to be useful for analyzing the characteristics of mHealth projects.

BACKGROUND The presence of mobile phone and smart devices has allowed for the use of mobile apps to support patient care. However, there is a paucity in our knowledge regarding recommendations for mobile apps specific to health care professionals. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to establish a validated instrument to assess mobile apps for health care providers and health systems. Our objective is to create and validate a tool that evaluates mobile health apps aimed at health care professionals based on a trust, utility, and interest scale. METHODS A five-step methodology framework guided our approach. The first step consisted of building a scale to evaluate apps for health care professionals based on a literature review. This was followed with expert panel validation through a Delphi method of (rated) web-based questionnaires to empirically evaluate the inclusion and weight of the indicators identified through the literature review. Repeated iterations were followed until a consensus greater than 75% was reached. The scale was then tested using a pilot to assess reliability. Interrater agreement of the pilot was measured using a weighted Cohen kappa. RESULTS Using a literature review, a first draft of the scale was developed. This was followed with two Delphi rounds between the local research group and an external panel of experts. After consensus was reached, the resulting ISYScore-Pro 17-item scale was tested. A total of 280 apps were originally identified for potential testing (140 iOS apps and 140 Android apps). These were categorized using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. Once duplicates were removed and they were downloaded to confirm their specificity to the target audience (ie, health care professionals), 66 remained. Of these, only 18 met the final criteria for inclusion in validating the ISYScore-Pro scale (interrator reliabilty 92.2%; kappa 0.840, 95% CI 0.834-0.847; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS We have developed a reproducible methodology to objectively evaluate mobile health apps targeted to health care professionals and providers, the ISYScore-Pro scale. Future research will be needed to adapt the scale to other languages and across other domains (eg, legal compliance or security).