Dataset Information

Cost Effectiveness and Impact in Quality of Care of a Pediatric Multidisciplinary Stone Clinic.

ABSTRACT: Herein, we assess the cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary clinic for children with urinary stones. The clinic's primary goals were to decrease unnecessary visits, imaging, and costs while optimizing the quality of care.

Methods

Between October 2012 and January 2016, children with complex stone disease, previously treated in urology and/or nephrology clinics, were seen at a triannual pediatric combined stone clinic. We compared the number and cost of ultrasounds, emergency room (ER) visits, and stone surgeries performed before and after each patient's initial evaluation. All patients received satisfaction surveys.

Results

Among the 79 patients, 27 were seen at least twice in the combined clinic and followed multiple times in either urology or nephrology clinics. The mean number of ER visits per patient per year significantly decreased from 0.29 ± 0.36 to 0.10 ± 0.15 (P = 0.002). The mean cost of ER visits went from CAD$ 23.44 ± 28.80 to CAD$ 4.14 ± 12.18 (P = 0.002). Likewise, the mean annual number and cost of stone-related surgeries significantly decreased [(0.38 ± 0.63 versus 0.20 ± 0.32 after the MSC started (P = 0.026) and mean annual cost of surgeries went from CAD$ 182.97 ± 301.49 to CAD$ 41.59 ± 110.97 (P = 0.022)]. Among the survey responses returned, 75% of families believed the clinic was time-saving.

Conclusions

Despite a small sample size, the number of ER visits and stone-related operations significantly decreased after the initial combined clinic intervention. Longer-term data will hopefully confirm if the positive findings continue.

SUBMITTER: Ming JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8476049 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe virtual multidisciplinary stroke care clinic (VMSCC) is the first nurse-led clinic developed to offer support to community-dwelling stroke survivors and caregivers, and to promote poststroke recovery. This two-arm randomised controlled trial will evaluate its effectiveness on survivors' self-efficacy (SE), survivors' and caregivers' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness on emergency admissions and length of readmission hospital stay.Methods and analysisA consecutive sample of 384 stroke survivor-caregiver dyads will be recruited from four hospitals. An online platform that embraces readily accessible and reliable information will be developed. Participants randomly assigned to the intervention group will receive usual care plus the VMSCC service. The service includes access to a tablet containing 30 videos demonstrating appropriate self-care strategies, communication with a registered nurse monthly through video and telephone calls and regular blood pressure monitoring. Primary outcomes include survivors' SE in self-management and survivors' and caregivers' HRQoL. Secondary outcomes include survivors' performance of self-management behaviours, depression and social participation; and caregivers' coping strategies, satisfaction with caring and depression. Data will be collected at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months after commencing the intervention. Survivors' and caregivers' satisfaction with the service will be assessed at 6-month follow-up. Multivariable regressions and generalised estimating equations model will be conducted. Survivors' emergency admissions and length of hospital stay will be evaluated during the 6-month follow-up period. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed on the average total cost incurred.DiscussionThe results will inform stakeholders about incorporating the VMSCC service into current stroke rehabilitation service.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC Ref. No.: 2017.660). All participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated through scientific publications, and presentations at local and international conferences.Trial registration numberChiCTR1800016101; Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Integrative medicine (IM) is a patient-centered, healing-oriented clinical paradigm that explicitly includes all appropriate therapeutic approaches whether they originate in conventional or complementary medicine (CM). While there is some evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IM practice models, the existing evidence base for IM depends largely on studies of individual CM therapies. This may in part be due to the methodological challenges inherent in evaluating a complex intervention (i.e., many interacting components applied flexibly and with tailoring) such as IM. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will use a combination of observational quantitative and qualitative methods to rigorously measure the health and healthcare utilization outcomes of the University of Arizona Integrative Health Center (UAIHC), an IM adult primary care clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. There are four groups of study participants. The primary group consists of clinic patients for whom clinical and cost outcomes will be tracked indicating the impact of the UAIHC clinic (n?=?500). In addition to comparing outcomes pre/post clinic enrollment, where possible, these outcomes will be compared to those of two matched control groups, and for some self-report measures, to regional and national data. The second and third study groups consist of clinic patients (n?=?180) and clinic personnel (n?=?15-20) from whom fidelity data (i.e., data indicating the extent to which the IM practice model was implemented as planned) will be collected. These data will be analyzed to determine the exact nature of the intervention as implemented and to provide covariates to the outcomes analyses as the clinic evolves. The fourth group is made up of patients (n?=?8) whose path through the clinic will be studied in detail using qualitative (periodic semi-structured interviews) methods. These data will be used to develop hypotheses regarding how the clinic works. DISCUSSION: The US health care system needs new models of care that are more patient-centered and empower patients to make positive lifestyle changes. These models have the potential to reduce the burden of chronic disease, lower the cost of healthcare, and offer a sustainable financial paradigm for our nation. This protocol has been designed to test whether the UAIHC can achieve this potential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01785485.

Project description:Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016-February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017-December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

Project description:ImportanceParental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresThe trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs.ResultsThe study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

Project description:BackgroundOlder people account for 25% of all Emergency Department (ED) admissions. This is expected to rise with an ageing demographic. Older people often present to the ED with complex medical needs in the setting of multiple comorbidities. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has been shown to improve outcomes in an inpatient setting but clear evidence of benefit in the ED setting has not been established. It is not feasible to offer this resource-intensive assessment to all older adults in a timely fashion. Screening tools for frailty have been used to identify those at most risk for adverse outcomes following ED visit. The overall aim of this study is to examine the impact of CGA on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care in an undifferentiated population of frail older people with medical complaints who present to the ED and Acute Medical Assessment Unit.MethodsThis will be a parallel 1:1 allocation randomised control trial. All patients who are ≥ 75 years will be screened for frailty using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) tool. Those with a score of ≥ 2 on the ISAR will be randomised. The treatment arm will undergo geriatric medicine team-led CGA in the ED or Acute Medical Assessment Unit whereas the non-treatment arm will undergo usual patient care. A dedicated multidisciplinary team of a specialist geriatric medicine doctor, senior physiotherapist, specialist nurse, pharmacist, senior occupational therapist and senior medical social worker will carry out the assessment, as well as interventions that arise from that assessment. Primary outcomes will be the length of stay in the ED or Acute Medical Assessment Unit. Secondary outcomes will include ED re-attendance, re-hospitalisation, functional decline, quality of life and mortality at 30 days and 180 days. These will be determined by telephone consultation and electronic records by a research nurse blinded to group allocation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Health Service Executive (HSE) Mid-Western Regional Hospital Research Ethics Committee (088/2020). Our lay dissemination strategy will be developed in collaboration with our Patient and Public Involvement stakeholder panel of older people at the Ageing Research Centre and we will present our findings in peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04629690 . Registered on November 16, 2020.

Project description:ImportanceYouth anxiety and depression are common and undertreated. Pediatric transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and/or depression may be associated with improved access to treatment among youths.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pediatric transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy (BBT) program for anxiety and/or depression compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care (ARC).Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective using data from a randomized clinical trial of youths with full or probable diagnoses of anxiety or depression who were recruited from pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial was conducted from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014, and this analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, through October 20, 2020.InterventionsIn the randomized clinical trial, youths were randomized to BBT (n = 95) or ARC (n = 90). The BBT program consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master's-level therapists. Families randomized to ARC received personalized referrals to mental health care and telephone calls to support access to care.Main outcomes and measuresAnxiety-free days, depression-free days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from intake through 32-week follow-up. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs was used to assess the probability that BBT was cost-effective compared with ARC over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome.ResultsEnrolled patients included 185 youths (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] White; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths who received BBT experienced significantly more anxiety-free days (difference, 28.63 days; 95% CI, 5.86-50.71 days; P = .01) and QALYs (difference, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.009-0.046; P = .007) compared with youths who received ARC. Youths who received BBT experienced more depression-free days than did youths who received ARC (difference, 10.52 days; 95% CI, -4.50 to 25.76 days; P = .18), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$41 414 per QALY (95% CI, -$220 601 to $11 468). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis indicated that, at a recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the probability that BBT would be cost-effective compared with ARC at 32 weeks was 95.6%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, BBT in primary care was significantly associated with better outcomes and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with ARC. The findings suggest that transdiagnostic BBT may be associated with improved youth anxiety and functioning at a reasonable cost.