Cargando…
The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6907262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31829227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-019-0687-2 |
_version_ | 1783478516057112576 |
---|---|
author | Goldstein, Lara Nicole Wells, Mike Vincent-Lambert, Craig |
author_facet | Goldstein, Lara Nicole Wells, Mike Vincent-Lambert, Craig |
author_sort | Goldstein, Lara Nicole |
collection | PubMed |
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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6907262 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69072622019-12-20 The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial Goldstein, Lara Nicole Wells, Mike Vincent-Lambert, Craig Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research 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. BioMed Central 2019-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6907262/ /pubmed/31829227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-019-0687-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Goldstein, Lara Nicole Wells, Mike Vincent-Lambert, Craig The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
title | The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
title_full | The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
title_fullStr | The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
title_short | The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6907262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31829227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-019-0687-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT goldsteinlaranicole thecosteffectivenessofupfrontpointofcaretestingintheemergencydepartmentasecondaryanalysisofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT wellsmike thecosteffectivenessofupfrontpointofcaretestingintheemergencydepartmentasecondaryanalysisofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT vincentlambertcraig thecosteffectivenessofupfrontpointofcaretestingintheemergencydepartmentasecondaryanalysisofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT goldsteinlaranicole costeffectivenessofupfrontpointofcaretestingintheemergencydepartmentasecondaryanalysisofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT wellsmike costeffectivenessofupfrontpointofcaretestingintheemergencydepartmentasecondaryanalysisofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT vincentlambertcraig costeffectivenessofupfrontpointofcaretestingintheemergencydepartmentasecondaryanalysisofarandomisedcontrolledtrial |