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.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,260,577
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#135,659
of 229,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,524
of 428,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,000
of 3,985 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 229,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,985 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
