Dataset Information

Do clinical guidelines reduce clinician dependent costs?

ABSTRACT: Clinician dependent costs are the costs of care that are under the discretion of the healthcare provider. These costs include the costs of drugs, tests and investigations, and discretionary outpatient visits and impatient stays. The purpose of this review was to summarize recent evidence, relevant to both developed and developing countries on whether evidence based clinical guidelines can change hospitals variable costs which are clinician dependent, and the degree of financial savings achieved at hospital level. Potential studies for inclusion were identified using structured searches of Econlit, J-Stor, and Pubmed databases. Two reviewers independently evaluated retrieved studies for inclusion. The methodological quality of the selected articles was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence- Based Medicine (CEBM) levels of evidence. The results suggest that 10 of the 11 interventions were successful reducing financial costs. Most of the interventions, either in modeling studies or real interventions generate significant financial saving, although the former reported higher savings because the studies assumed 100 percent compliance.

SUBMITTER: Kosimbei G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3128844 | biostudies-other | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do clinical guidelines reduce clinician dependent costs?

Kosimbei George G Hanson Kara K English Mike M

Health research policy and systems 20110616

Clinician dependent costs are the costs of care that are under the discretion of the healthcare provider. These costs include the costs of drugs, tests and investigations, and discretionary outpatient visits and impatient stays. The purpose of this review was to summarize recent evidence, relevant to both developed and developing countries on whether evidence based clinical guidelines can change hospitals variable costs which are clinician dependent, and the degree of financial savings achieved ...[more]

PMID: 21679458

Similar Datasets

Project description:Methotrexate (MTX) is widely used as disease modifying treatment for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Rheumatological and dermatological guidelines to prevent MTX-induced adverse events diverge in the number and frequency of blood tests. These differences are not based on evidence indicating a higher risk for patients with psoriasis compared to PsA or rheumatic arthritis (RA). This raises the question if multiple testing increases safety, or results in false positive signals potentially leading to early withdrawal of an effective treatment.Compare the effects of MTX monitoring strategies by rheumatologists and dermatologists regarding drug survival, reasons for withdrawal and safety.Retrospective follow-up of all patients diagnosed with psoriasis by dermatologists or PsA by rheumatologists. Included were consecutive patients who started methotrexate (MTX) between 2006 and 2012 and had a scheduled follow-up by dermatologist or rheumatologist. Exclusions were: drug not started after the first prescription or incomplete availability of lab data. Data were extracted from electronic records: start and stop dates and dosing of MTX; treatment with folic acid and dose; reasons for withdrawal of MTX; numbers of blood sampling and types of laboratory tests performed for MTX safety; number of abnormal tests; occurrence of any serious adverse event (SAE).190 Psoriasis and 196 PsA patients starting methotrexate (MTX) were included. Age and sex were comparable. PsA patients used higher initial and maximum doses of MTX and folic acid, but psoriasis patients had a higher frequency of abnormal laboratory results (0.14 vs 0.03 per treatment month, p<0.001), resulting in a striking difference in withdrawal of MTX for abnormal liver enzymes (15.8% vs 3.6%, p<0.001). In PsA patients MTX was withdrawn less frequently for ineffectiveness (15.8 vs 24.2%, p<0.05) leading to longer drug survival in the first course of treatment (37.4±30 vs 18.8±19.1 months). Repeated courses of MTX were more often prescribed by rheumatologists than by dermatologists. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of SAE (psoriasis 0.0041 vs PsA 0.0038 per treatment month) or death (1.6% vs 2.0%) between these groups. Hospital admissions related to infection were recorded in 6 (3.1%) PsA vs 4 (2.1%) psoriasis patients.Strict monitoring by dermatologists resulted in more abnormal findings, which reduced drug survival of MTX. The limited monitoring strategy by rheumatologists was not associated with more SAEs. Further research in other populations is needed to confirm whether reduced intensity of monitoring can optimize the use of MTX with sufficient long-term safety.

Project description:Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n = 1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (≥75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p < 0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.

Project description:BackgroundClinician champions are front-line clinicians who advocate for and influence practice change in their local context. The strategies they use when leading efforts to reduce the use of low-value care have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe strategies used by six clinician champions who led a low-value care initiative in their clinical setting.MethodsQualitative data collected during an overuse reduction initiative led by clinician champions were used to identify strategies, guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of strategies. Clinician champions were asked to rank the importance of these activities and indicate which one of the six most important activities they would be willing to discuss in an interview. A 30-min semi-structured interview was conducted with each clinician about the activity they selected and thematically analyzed.ResultsTwelve Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies were identified. The top six strategies discussed during interviews were: build a coalition, conduct a local needs assessment, develop a formal implementation blueprint, conduct educational meetings, use facilitation, and develop clinical reminders. Common themes that emerged across all interviews were the use of data to engage clinicians in conversations, including the patient's perspective in designing the interventions, and investing the time upfront to plan and launch the initiative because of the inherent challenges of relinquishing a service.ConclusionsClinician champions identified multiple strategies as important when de-implementing a low-value service. Many were used to engage in conversations with stakeholders, including leadership, providers, and patients, to increase buy-in and support, challenge beliefs, promote behavior change, and gather insights about next steps in their effort. Future work is needed to better understand how prepare clinicians for this role and to understand the mechanisms through which these strategies might be effective.

Dataset Information

Do clinical guidelines reduce clinician dependent costs?

Publications

Do clinical guidelines reduce clinician dependent costs?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets