scholarly journals Liquid gold: the cost-effectiveness of urine sample collection methods for young precontinent children

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Kaufman ◽  
Andrew Joshua Knight ◽  
Penelope A Bryant ◽  
Franz E Babl ◽  
Kim Dalziel
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Urine Sample ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Urine Collection ◽  
Collection Method ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Hospital Bed ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Collection Methods

BackgroundUrinary tract infection (UTI) is a common childhood infection. Many febrile children require a urine sample to diagnose or exclude UTI. Collecting urine from young children can be time-consuming, unsuccessful or contaminated. Cost-effectiveness of each collection method in the emergency department is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of urine collection methods for precontinent children.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing non-invasive (urine bag, clean catch and 5 min voiding stimulation for clean catch) and invasive (catheterisation and suprapubic aspirate (SPA)) collection methods, for children aged 0–24 months in the emergency department. Costs included equipment, staff time and hospital bed occupancy. If initial collection attempts were unsuccessful subsequent collection using catheterisation was assumed. The final outcome was a definitive sample incorporating progressive dipstick, culture and contamination results. Average costs and outcomes were calculated for initial collection attempts and obtaining a definitive sample. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsFor initial collection attempts, catheterisation had the lowest cost per successful collection (GBP£25.98) compared with SPA (£37.80), voiding stimulation (£41.32), clean catch (£52.84) and urine bag (£92.60). For definitive collection, catheterisation had the lowest cost per definitive sample (£49.39) compared with SPA (£51.84), voiding stimulation (£52.25), clean catch (£64.82) and urine bag (£112.28). Time occupying a hospital bed was the most significant determinant of cost.ConclusionCatheterisation is the most cost-effective urine collection method, and voiding stimulation is the most cost-effective non-invasive method. Urine bags are the most expensive method. Although clinical factors influence choice of method, considering cost-effectiveness for this common procedure has potential for significant aggregate savings.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Initial Revision Digit Amputation Performed in the Emergency Department Versus the Operating Room

Hand ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Gil ◽  
Avi D. Goodman ◽  
Andrew P. Harris ◽  
Neill Y. Li ◽  
Arnold-Peter C. Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Operating Room ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Initial Management ◽  
Fingertip Amputation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Initial Procedure ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of performing initial revision finger amputation in the emergency department (ED) versus in the operating room (OR) accounting for need for unplanned secondary revision in the OR. Methods: We retrospectively examined patients presenting to the ED with traumatic finger and thumb amputations from January 2010 to December 2015. Only those treated with primarily revision amputation were included. Following initial management, the need for unplanned reoperation was assessed and associated with setting of initial management. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the cost-effectiveness threshold for initial management in the ED versus the OR. Results: Five hundred thirty-seven patients had 677 fingertip amputations, of whom 91 digits were initially primarily revised in the OR, and 586 digits were primarily revised in the ED. Following initial revision, 91 digits required unplanned secondary revision. The unplanned secondary revision rates were similar between settings: 13.7% digits from the ED and 12.1% of digits from the OR ( P = .57). When accounting for direct costs, an incidence of unplanned revision above 77.0% after initial revision fingertip amputation in the ED would make initial revision fingertip amputation in the OR cost-effective. Therefore, based on the unplanned secondary revision rate, initial management in the ED is more cost-effective than in the OR. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the incidence of unplanned/secondary revision of fingertip amputation rate after the initial procedure was performed in the ED versus the OR.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a physician-nurse supplementary triage assessment team at an academic tertiary care emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Cheng ◽  
Maaret Castren ◽  
Alex Kiss ◽  
Merrick Zwarenstein ◽  
Mats Brommels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Patient Volume ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physician-nurse supplementary triage assistance team (MDRNSTAT) from a hospital and patient perspective.MethodsThis was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of a cluster randomized control trial comparing the MDRNSTAT with nurse-only triage in the emergency department (ED) between the hours of 0800 and 1500. Cost was MDRNSTAT salary. Revenue was from Ontario’s Pay-for-Results and patient volume-case mix payment programs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was based on MDRNSTAT cost and three consequence assessments: 1) per additional patient-seen; 2) per physician initial assessment (PIA) hour saved; and 3) per ED length of stay (EDLOS) hour saved. Patient opportunity cost was determined. Patient satisfaction was quantified by a cost-benefit ratio. A sensitivity analysis extrapolating MDRNSTAT to different working hours, salary, and willingness-to-pay data was performed.ResultsThe added cost of the MDRNSTAT was $3,597.27 [$1,729.47 to ∞] per additional patient-seen, $75.37 [$67.99 to $105.30] per PIA hour saved, and $112.99 [$74.68 to $251.43] per EDLOS hour saved. From the hospital perspective, the cost-benefit ratio was 38.6 [19.0 to ∞] and net present value of –$447,996 [–$435,646 to –$459,900]. For patients, the cost-benefit ratio for satisfaction was 2.8 [2.3 to 4.6]. If MDRNSTAT performance were consistently implemented from noon to midnight, it would be more cost-effective.ConclusionsThe MDRNSTAT is not a cost-effective daytime strategy but appears to be more feasible during time periods with higher patient volume, such as late morning to evening.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Thorax ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. thoraxjnl-2021-217463
Author(s):  
James Hall ◽  
Alice Margaret Turner ◽  
Janine Dretzke ◽  
David Moore ◽  
Sue Jowett
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited.MethodsA Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.ResultsAt the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.ConclusionDomiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (81) ◽  
pp. 1-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Dretzke ◽  
Deirdre Blissett ◽  
Chirag Dave ◽  
Rahul Mukherjee ◽  
Malcolm Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation.Data sourcesBibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately.ResultsThirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective.LimitationsEvidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings.Future work recommendationsThe results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

VP36 Cost-Effectiveness Of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing For Down Syndrome

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 165-166
Author(s):  
Estibalitz Orruño ◽  
Juan Carlos Bayón ◽  
Isabel Portillo ◽  
José Asua
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Cell Free Fetal Dna ◽  
Primary Test ◽  
The Cost

INTRODUCTION:The analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood, also called Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), represents an emerging technology and a possible alternative/complement to current prenatal screening based on biochemical and sonographic markers for Down Syndrome (DS) detection.The aim of the study was to compare the application of NIPT with the prenatal diagnosis/screening procedures currently applied in the Basque Country.METHODS:An analytical decision model was developed to assess the costs and consequences, comparing current prenatal screening, NIPT as a contingency test in high-risk cases and NIPT as a first-line screening test. An economic analysis was conducted to determine which strategy was more cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses were performed (1).RESULTS:For a population of 97,074 pregnant women in gestational week 14 and a cut-off point of 1:270, NIPT as a contingent test was not cost-effective, detecting two cases less of DS and causing a lower number of miscarriages related to invasive-testing (4 versus 23) at a slightly lower cost (EUR8,111,351 versus EUR8,901,872).For risk cut-off points of 1:500 or 1:1000 for contingent NIPT, the number of DS cases detected increased, as did the cost. It could be cost-effective compared with current prenatal screening, (EUR61,763 or EUR256,123 per extra DS case detected, respectively).Using the NIPT as a primary test detected more DS cases (296 versus 271) and caused less miscarriages (5 versus 23), at a substantially higher cost (EUR41,395,645 versus EUR8,901,872). Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that it was more expensive and more effective.Univariant sensitivity-analysis showed that when the price of the NIPT as primary test was EUR76, it was dominant compared with current prenatal screening. It was also cost-effective compared with the NIPT as a contingent test (EUR9,869 per extra DS case detected).CONCLUSIONS:The study shows that NIPT had higher detection rates for DS in different scenarios, but the cost constitutes a limiting factor for implementation in the Basque Health System.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Nicole Goldstein ◽  
Mike Wells ◽  
Craig Vincent-Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Viability ◽  
Time Saving ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Time-saving is constantly sought after in the Emergency Department (ED), and Point-of-Care (POC) testing has been shown to be an effective time-saving intervention. However, when direct costs are compared, these tests commonly appear to be cost-prohibitive. Economic viability may become apparent when the time-saving is translated into financial benefits from staffing, time- and cost-saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic investigations utilised prior to medical contact for ED patients with common medical complaints. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of upfront, POC testing. Eleven combinations of POC equivalents of commonly-used special investigations (blood tests (i-STAT and complete blood count (CBC)), electrocardiograms (ECGs) and x-rays (LODOX® (Low Dose X-ray)) were evaluated compared to the standard ED pathway with traditional diagnostic tests. The economic viability of each permutation was assessed using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves. Expenses related to the POC test implementation were compared to the control group while taking staffing costs and time-saving into account. Results There were 897 medical patients randomised to receive various combinations of POC tests. The most cost-effective combination was the i-STAT+CBC permutation which, based on the time saving, would ultimately save money if implemented. All LODOX®-containing permutations were costlier but still saved time. Non-LODOX® permutations were virtually 100% cost-effective if an additional cost of US$50 per patient was considered acceptable. Higher staffing costs would make using POC testing even more economical. Conclusions In certain combinations, upfront, POC testing is more cost-effective than standard diagnostic testing for common ED undifferentiated medical presentations – the most economical POC test combination being the i-STAT + CBC. Upfront POC testing in the ED has the potential to not only save time but also to save money. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03102216.

A policy of day-case sinonasal surgery is safe, well tolerated and cost-effective

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
M Duignan ◽  
C Lao ◽  
R Lawrenson ◽  
A J Wood
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Day Case ◽  
Day Case Surgery ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Same Day Discharge ◽  
Case Surgery ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objective Practices vary regarding the timing of discharge after sinonasal surgery. This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of same-day discharge compared to next-day discharge after sinonasal surgery. Methods A retrospective single-surgeon audit of sinonasal surgery over a 12-month period was performed. Demographic and clinical details, including distance travelled home, timing of discharge, hospital re-presentation, and complications, were collected and compared between the same-day discharge and next-day discharge groups. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Results A total of 181 patients were identified; 117 underwent day-case surgery, of which 6 re-presented to the emergency department. Sixty-four patients stayed overnight after surgery, and six of those patients re-presented to the emergency department. The per patient cost was $3262 for day-case sinonasal surgery and $5050 for those admitted overnight after surgery (p < 0.001). Conclusion Routine same-day discharge after sinonasal surgery is achievable, safe and cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost-Effective Respiratory Virus Testing

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. Pinsky ◽  
R. T. Hayden
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Respiratory Virus ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Virus Infections ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Respiratory Virus Infections ◽  
Virus Testing

ABSTRACTThe timely and accurate diagnosis of respiratory virus infections has the potential to optimize downstream (posttesting) use of limited health care resources, including antibiotics, antivirals, ancillary testing, and inpatient and emergency department beds. Cost-effective algorithms for respiratory virus testing must take into consideration numerous factors, including which patients should be tested, what testing should be performed (for example, antigen testing versus reverse transcription-PCR testing or influenza A/B testing versus testing with a comprehensive respiratory virus panel), and the turnaround time necessary to achieve the desired posttesting outcomes. Despite the clinical impact of respiratory virus infections, the cost-effectiveness of respiratory virus testing is incompletely understood. In this article, we review the literature pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of respiratory virus testing in pediatric and adult patient populations, in emergency department, outpatient, and inpatient clinical settings. Furthermore, we consider the cost-effectiveness of a variety of testing methods, including rapid antigen tests, direct fluorescent antibody assays, and nucleic acid amplification tests.

scholarly journals Is the Cost-Effectiveness of Stroke Thrombolysis Affected by Proportion of Stroke Mimics?

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ava L. Liberman ◽  
Ho-Jun Choi ◽  
Dustin D. French ◽  
Shyam Prabhakaran
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Stroke Mimics ◽  
The Cost

Background and Purpose— Differentiating ischemic stroke patients from stroke mimics (SM), nonvascular conditions which simulate stroke, can be challenging in the acute setting. We sought to model the cost-effectiveness of treating suspected acute ischemic stroke patients before a definitive diagnosis could be made. We hypothesized that we would identify threshold proportions of SM among suspected stroke patients arriving to an emergency department above which administration of intravenous thrombolysis was no longer cost-effective. Methods— We constructed a decision-analytic model to examine various emergency department thrombolytic treatment scenarios. The main variables were proportion of SM to true stroke patients, time from symptom onset to treatment, and complication rates. Costs, reimbursement rates, and expected clinical outcomes of ischemic stroke and SM patients were estimated from published data. We report the 90-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of administering intravenous thrombolysis compared with no acute treatment from a healthcare sector perspective, as well as the cost-reimbursement ratio from a hospital-level perspective. Cost-effectiveness was defined as a willingness to pay <$100 000 USD per quality adjusted life year gained and high cost-reimbursement ratio was defined as >1.5. Results— There was an increase in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios as the proportion of SM cases increased in the 3-hour time window. The threshold proportion of SM above which the decision to administer thrombolysis was no longer cost-effective was 30%. The threshold proportion of SM above which the decision to administer thrombolysis resulted in high cost-reimbursement ratio was 75%. Results were similar for patients arriving within 0 to 90 minutes of symptom onset as compared with 91 to 180 minutes but were significantly affected by cost of alteplase in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions— We identified thresholds of SM above which thrombolysis was no longer cost-effective from 2 analytic perspectives. Hospitals should monitor SM rates and establish performance metrics to prevent rising acute stroke care costs and avoid potential patient harms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document