Dataset Information

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED).

Design

Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.

Setting

A single ED in England.

Participants

372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups.

Interventions

Patients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).

Main outcome measures

Economic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings.

Results

From a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care.

Conclusions

These results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

SUBMITTER: McClellan CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3549250 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

McClellan Carey Middleton CM Cramp Fiona F Powell Jane J Benger Jonathan Richard JR

BMJ open 20130103 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED).<h4>Design</h4>Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.<h4>Setting</h4>A single ED in England.<h4>Participants</h4>372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (1 ...[more]

PMID: 23293239

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:In a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED. DESIGN:Measured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied. SETTING:An urban ED in the United States. PARTICIPANTS:Opioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older. MEASUREMENTS:Self-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week. FINDINGS:Considering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates. CONCLUSION:In the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding.DesignA scoping review.Data sourcesA comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources.Eligibility criteriaInterventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding.MethodsWe engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages).ResultsFrom 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either 'within ED' (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or 'outside ED' interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The 'within ED' and 'outside ED' interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively.ConclusionsWe identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.

Project description: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.

Project description:Background Accurate diagnosis of patients with transient or minor neurological events can be challenging. Recent studies suggest that advanced neuroimaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in low-risk patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms, but a cost-effective emergency department diagnostic evaluation strategy remains uncertain. Methods and Results We constructed a decision-analytic model to evaluate 2 diagnostic evaluation strategies for patients with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms: (1) obtain advanced neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging brain and magnetic resonance angiography head and neck) on every patient or (2) current emergency department standard-of-care clinical evaluation with basic neuroimaging. Main probability variables were: proportion of patients with true ischemic events, strategy specificity and sensitivity, and recurrent stroke rate. Direct healthcare costs were included. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, conducted sensitivity analyses, and evaluated various diagnostic test parameters primarily using a 1-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness standards would be met if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than willingness to pay. We defined willingness to pay as $100 000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year. Our primary and sensitivity analyses found that the advanced neuroimaging strategy was more cost-effective than emergency department standard of care. The incremental effectiveness of the advanced neuroimaging strategy was slightly less than the standard-of-care strategy, but the standard-of-care strategy was more costly. Potentially superior diagnostic approaches to the modeled advanced neuroimaging strategy would have to be >92% specific, >70% sensitive, and cost less than or equal to standard-of-care strategy's cost. Conclusions Obtaining advanced neuroimaging on emergency department patient with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms was the more cost-effective strategy in our model.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Older people are frequent emergency department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes following the index visit, often have increased ED length of stay, and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and an improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCP teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, and clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared with usual care. METHODS:The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ?65?years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30 days, and 4 and 6 months of follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; cost-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared with usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. DISCUSSION:This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of this study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515 . Registered on 12 November 2018.

Project description:BackgroundA three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C?+?P), Biological with best practice prevention (B?+?P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA).MethodsData on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.ResultsA total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C?+?P n?=?352, B?+?P n?=?352, PA n?=?354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36?months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B?+?P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (-?0.06; 97.5% CI: -?0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (-?0.14; 97.5% CI: -?0.29 to 0.71) in B?+?P compared to PA. C?+?P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B?+?P.ConclusionsThe mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B?+?P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B?+?P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%.Trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate geriatric education programs for emergency department (ED) professionals based on: content and teaching methods and learning outcome effects and factors promoting or hindering program implementation.DesignSystematic review.SettingED.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurses, and medical residents working in the ED.Methods and measurementFive major biomedical databases were searched for (quasi) experimental studies, published between 1990 and April 2018, evaluating geriatric education programs for ED professionals. Data were synthesized around study quality, learning participants, teaching content and methods, and Kirkpatrick learning outcomes.ResultsNine before-after studies were included. Learners were mostly ED residents and, to a smaller extent, ED nurses and physicians. Study quality was moderate, with the lowest scores on sampling and instrument validity. Programs varied from a 1-day workshop to a 2-year curriculum, mostly combining didactic lectures with active and experiential learning formats. Topics commonly addressed included managing: geriatric syndromes, trauma and falls, medication, atypical presentations, and care transitions. Statistically significant improvements were mostly found in learners' knowledge acquisition (six studies). Significant improvements were also found in single studies on: self-reported geriatric screening, documentation of geriatric care, and appropriate urinary catheter placement. Factors promoting program implementation included: solving competing educational demands and busy work schedules, embedding the program in preexisting curricula, and close collaboration between emergency and geriatric medicine faculties.ConclusionsVarious geriatric education programs improve the geriatric knowledge of ED professionals and seem to positively impact their clinical practice. However, more program evaluations with larger study samples, and use of valid and reliable outcome measures, are needed to provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of such programs. J Am Geriatr Soc, 1-8, 2019. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2402-2409, 2019.

Dataset Information

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure