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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goldstein, Lara Nicole, Wells, Mike, Vincent-Lambert, Craig
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