Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Goldstein LN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6907262 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Goldstein Lara Nicole LN Wells Mike M Vincent-Lambert Craig C

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 20191211 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 investig ...[more]

PMID: 31829227

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIn many resource-limited health systems, point-of-care tests (POCTs) are the only means for clinical patient sample analyses. However, the speed and simplicity of POCTs also makes their use appealing to clinicians in high-income countries (HICs), despite greater laboratory accessibility. Although also part of the clinical routine in HICs, clinician perceptions of the utility of POCTs are relatively unknown in such settings as compared with others. In a Swedish paediatric emergency department (PED) where POCT use is routine, we aimed to characterise healthcare providers' perspectives on the clinical utility of POCTs and explore their implementation in the local setting; to discuss and compare such perspectives, to those reported in other settings; and finally, to gather requests for ideal novel POCTs.DesignQualitative focus group discussions study. A data-driven content analysis approach was used for analysis.SettingThe PED of a secondary paediatric hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.ParticipantsTwenty-four healthcare providers clinically active at the PED were enrolled in six focus groups.ResultsA range of POCTs was routinely used. The emerging theme Utility of our POCT use is double-edged illustrated the perceived utility of POCTs. While POCT services were considered to have clinical and social value, the local routine for their use was named to distract clinicians from the care for patients. Requests were made for ideal POCTs and their implementation.ConclusionDespite their clinical integration, deficient implementation routines limit the benefits of POCT services to this well-resourced paediatric clinic. As such deficiencies are shared with other settings, it is suggested that some characteristics of POCTs and of their utility are less related to resource level and more to policy deficiency. To address this, we propose the appointment of skilled laboratory personnel as ambassadors to hospital clinics offering POCT services, to ensure higher utility of such services.

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 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).DesignRandomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.SettingA single ED in England.Participants372 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.InterventionsPatients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).Main outcome measuresEconomic 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsThese 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.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure