Background Improving efficiency of health sector is of particular importance in all countries. To reach this end, it is paramount to measure the efficiency. On the other hand, there are many factors that affect the efficiency of health systems. This study aimed to measure the Technical Efficiency (TE) of health systems in Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) countries during 2004–10 and to determine the factors affecting their TE. Methods This was a descriptive-analytical and panel study. The required data were gathered using library and field studies, available statistics and international websites through completing data collection forms. In this study, the TE of health systems in 10 ECO countries was measured using their available data and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) through two approaches. The first approach used GDP per capita, education and smoking as its inputs and life expectancy and infant mortality rates as the outputs. The second approach, also, used the health expenditures per capita, the number of physicians per thousand people, and the number of hospital beds per thousand people as its inputs and life expectancy and under-5 mortality rates as the outputs. Then, the factors affecting the TE of health systems were determined using the panel data logit model. Excel 2010, Win4Deap 1.1.2 and Stata 11.0 were used to analyze the collected data. Results According to the first approach, the mean TE of health systems was 0.497 and based on the second one it was 0.563. Turkey and Turkmenistan had, respectively, the highest and lowest mean of efficiency. Also, the results of panel data logit model showed that only GDP per capita and health expenditures per capita had significant relationships with the TE of health systems. Conclusion In order to maximize the TE of health systems, health policy-makers should pay special attention to the proper use of healthcare resources according to the people’s needs, the appropriate management of the health system resources, allocating adequate budgets to the health sector, establishing an appropriate referral system to provide better public access to health services according to their income and needs, among many others.

Key performance indicators are essential navigation tools for hospitals. They provide managers with valid information enabling them to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses and improve managerial performance. In this study, the synthesis of evidence relating to hospital performance indicators was carried out by means of a field review and the indicators were analyzed through the Best Fit Method. The five-step approach of Arksey and O’Malley was used as follows: selection of the research question; search for related studies; selection and refinement of the studies; synthesis and tabulation of key information; derivation of the related summary and report. Applying the Best Fit Framework Synthesis Method, the initial themes and subthemes were created and a model of public hospitals performance evaluation finally generated. Forty-nine studies were considered eligible to form part of the synthesis. The final model included the efficiency/productivity, effectiveness and financial themes. The efficiency/productivity sub-themes incorporated human resources indicators, hospital beds, costs, operating room productivity, emergency rooms, ICU, radiology, labs, technology and equipment productivity. Other sub-themes relate to general indicators such as BOR, ALS, number of outpatients and hospitalized patients. Financial themes included profit, revenue, cash flow, cost, investment, assets, debt and liquidity. Concerning effectiveness, the indicators were categorized in terms of access (equity), safety, quality and responsiveness. The accountability indicators were classified into patient-centeredness, staff orientation, and social responsibility. Hospital performance management is a multi-dimensional issue, each dimension having its own significance. Based on the evidence, indicators are dependent on the evaluation model employed, the evaluation objective, and the views of executive managers and participants in the study. Selection of the most appropriate indicators is therefore key to a comprehensive performance evaluation system.

This study was conducted with the purpose of determining the frequency of medication errors (MEs) occurring in tertiary care emergency department (ED) of a large academic hospital in Iran. The incidence of MEs was determined through the disguised direct observation method conducted by a trained observer. A total of 1,031 medication doses administered to 202 patients admitted to the tertiary care ED were observed over a course of 54 6-hour shifts. Following collection of the data and analysis of the errors with the assistance of a clinical pharmacist, frequency of errors in the different stages was reported and analyzed in SPSS-21 software. For the 202 patients and the 1,031 medication doses evaluated in the present study, 707 (68.5%) MEs were recorded in total. In other words, 3.5 errors per patient and almost 0.69 errors per medication are reported to have occurred, with the highest frequency of errors pertaining to cardiovascular (27.2%) and antimicrobial (23.6%) medications. The highest rate of errors occurred during the administration phase of the medication use process with a share of 37.6%, followed by errors of prescription and transcription with a share of 21.1% and 10% of errors, respectively. Omission (7.6%) and wrong time error (4.4%) were the most frequent administration errors. The less-experienced nurses (P=0.04), higher patient-to-nurse ratio (P=0.017), and the morning shifts (P=0.035) were positively related to administration errors. Administration errors marked the highest share of MEs occurring in the different medication use processes. Increasing the number of nurses and employing the more experienced of them in EDs can help reduce nursing errors. Addressing the shortcomings with further research should result in reduction of MEs in EDs.

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19. Material and method: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies. Results: Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines. Conclusion: Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

The Economic Burden of Traumatic Brain Injury Due to Fatal Traffic Accidents in Shahid Rajaei Trauma Hospital, Shiraz, Iran - Archives of Trauma Research - - Kowsar