Objectives To compare the effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability of estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events using three methods: cross sectional (data gathered in one day), prospective (data gathered during hospital stay), and retrospective (review of medical records). Design Independent assessment of three methods applied to one sample. Setting 37 wards in seven hospitals (three public, four private) in southwestern France. Participants 778 patients: medical (n = 278), surgical (n = 263), and obstetric (n = 237). Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were the proportion of cases (patients with at least one adverse event) identified by each method compared with a reference list of cases confirmed by ward staff and the proportion of preventable cases (patients with at least one preventable adverse event). Secondary outcome measures were inter-rater reliability of screening and identification, perceived workload, and face validity of results. Results The prospective and retrospective methods identified similar numbers of medical and surgical cases (70% and 66% of the total, respectively) but the prospective method identified more preventable cases (64% and 40%, respectively), had good reliability for identification ( = 0.83), represented an acceptable workload, and had higher face validity. The cross sectional method showed a large number of false positives and identified none of the most serious adverse events. None of the methods was appropriate for obstetrics. Conclusion The prospective method of data collection may be more appropriate for epidemiological studies that aim to convince clinical teams that their errors contribute significantly to adverse events, to study organisational and human factors, and to assess the impact of risk reduction programmes.

BackgroundIn France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France.Methods/Principal FindingsWe estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing (“current practice”) to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18–69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. “Current practice” produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY.Conclusions/SignificanceOne-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to “current practice” and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.

No abstract

Much research in France or abroad has highlighted the medical practice variation (MPV) phenomenon. There is no consensus on the origin of MPV between preference-centered approaches versus opportunities and constraints approaches. This study's main purpose is to assess the relevance of hypotheses which assume that physicians adopt a uniform practice style for their patients for each similar clinical decision in a context of medical decision with low uncertainty and professional practice with weak regulation. Multilevel models are evaluated: first to measure variability of antibiotics prescription by French general practitioners (GPs) for acute rhinopharyngitis regarding clinical guidelines, and to test its significance in order to determine to what extent prescription differences are due to between or within GPs discrepancies; second, to prioritize its determinants, especially those relating to a GP or his/her practice setting environment, while controlling visit or patient confounders. The study was based on 2001 activity data, along with an ad hoc questionnaire, of a sample of 778 GP taken from a panel of 1006 computerized French GPs. We observed that a large part of the total variation was due to intra-physician variability (70%). It is patient characteristics that largely explain the prescription, even if GP or practice setting characteristics (location, level of activity, network participation, continuing medical education) and environmental factors (visit from pharmaceutical sales representatives) also exert considerable influence. This suggests that MPV are partly caused by differences in the type of dissemination of medical information and this may help policy makers to identify and develop facilitators for promoting better use of antibiotics in France and, more generally, for influencing GP practices when it is of interest.

BackgroundCongenital Toxoplasmosis (CT) can have severe consequences. France, Austria, and Slovenia have prenatal screening programs whereas some other countries are considering universal screening to reduce congenital transmission and severity of infection in children. The efficiency of such programs is debated increasingly as seroprevalence among pregnant women and incidence of congenital toxoplasmosis show a steady decrease. In addition, uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of pre- and postnatal treatments.MethodTo identify cost-effective strategies, prenatal and neonatal screenings were compared using a decision-analytic model based on French guidelines and current knowledge of long-term evolution of the disease in treated children. Epidemiological data were extracted from the scientific literature and clinical data from the French Lyon cohort. Strategies were compared at one year of age, when infection can be definitively evaluated, and at 15 years of age, after which validated outcome data become scarce. The analysis was performed from the French Health Insurance System perspective and included direct medical costs for pregnant women and their children.ResultsThe 1-year Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio showed that prenatal screening would require investing €14,826 to avoid one adverse event (liveborn with CT, fetal loss, neonatal death or pregnancy termination) compared to neonatal screening. Extra investment increased up to €21,472 when considering the 15-year endpoint.ConclusionsPrenatal screening is cost-effective as compared to neonatal screening in moderate prevalence areas with predominant Type II strains. In addition, prenatal screening, by providing closer follow-up of women at risk increases the number of occasions for education avoiding toxoplasmosis.