Cost-effectiveness analysis of weekday and weeknight or weekend shifts for assessment of appendicitis

被引:0
|
作者
Andrea S. Doria
Heidi Amernic
Paul Dick
Paul Babyn
Peter Chait
Jacob Langer
Peter C. Coyte
Wendy J. Ungar
机构
[1] Hospital for Sick Children,Department of Diagnostic Imaging
[2] University of Toronto,Department of Health Policy and Management Evaluation
[3] Hospital for Sick Children,Paediatric Emergency Medicine, Population Health Sciences
[4] Hospital for Sick Children,Department of General Surgery
[5] University of Toronto,Population Health Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Health Policy and Management Evaluation
来源
Pediatric Radiology | 2005年 / 35卷
关键词
Cost-effectiveness analysis; Appendicitis; Children; Salary-based schedule; Fee-for-service schedule;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Assessment of appendicitis during a weeknight or weekend shift (after-hours period, AHP) might be more costly and less effective than its assessment on a weekday shift (standard hours period, SHP) because of increased costs (staff premium fees) and perforation risk (longer delays and less experience of fellows). Objectives: The objectives were to compare the costs and effectiveness of assessing children with suspected appendicitis who required a laparotomy and had US or CT after-hours with those of assessing children during standard hours, and to evaluate the importance of diagnostic imaging (DI) within the overall costs. Materials and methods: We retrospectively microcosted resource use within six areas of a tertiary hospital (emergency [ED], diagnostic imaging (DI), surgery, wards, transport, and pathology) in a tertiary hospital. About 41 children (1.8–17 years) in the AHP and 35 (2.9–16 years) in the SHP were evaluated. Work shift effectiveness was measured with a histological score that assessed the severity of appendicitis (non-perforated appendicitis: scores 1–3; perforated appendicitis: score 4). Results: The SHP was less costly and more effective regardless of whether the calculation included US or CT costs only. For a salary-based fee schedule, US$733 were saved per case of perforated appendicitis averted in the SHP. For a fee-for-service payment schedule, $847 were saved. Within the overall budget, the highest costs were those incurred on the ward for both shifts. The average cost per patient in DI ranged from 2 to 5% of the total costs in both shifts. Most perforation cases were found in the AHP (31.7%, AHP vs. 17.1%, SHP), which resulted in higher ward costs for patients in the AHP. Conclusion: A higher proportion of severe cases was seen in the AHP, which led to its higher costs. As a result, the SHP dominated the AHP, being less costly and more effective regardless of the fee schedule applied. The DI costs contributed little to the overall cost of the assessment of appendicitis.
引用
收藏
页码:1186 / 1195
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Antibiotics vs Appendectomy as Initial Treatment for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Chong, Vincent E.
    Lee, Wayne S.
    Victorino, Gregory P.
    Liu, Terrence H.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2014, 219 (03) : S95 - S96
  • [22] Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Approaches to Suspected Appendicitis in Children Discussion
    Lally, Kevin
    Cofer, Joseph
    Von Allman, Dan
    Richmond, Bryan
    Hughes, Tyler
    Huang, Eunice Y.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2015, 220 (04) : 746 - 748
  • [23] WILL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS WORSEN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALTH-CARE
    HIMMELSTEIN, DU
    WOOLHANDLER, S
    BOR, DH
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, 1988, 18 (01): : 1 - 9
  • [24] Cost-effectiveness analysis and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: uses and pitfalls
    Bambha, K
    Kim, WR
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2004, 16 (06) : 519 - 526
  • [25] A Novel Technique for Lumpectomy Margin Assessment: a Cost-effectiveness Analysis
    Alvarado, M.
    Harrison, B.
    Ozanne, E.
    Baehner, F.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2012, 48 : S221 - S221
  • [26] TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS - MISGUIDED GUIDELINES
    NAYLOR, CD
    WILLIAMS, JI
    BASINSKI, A
    GOEL, V
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1993, 148 (06) : 921 - 924
  • [27] Diagnostic Assessment Reviews: is cost-effectiveness analysis helpful or necessary?
    Mistry, Hema
    Mason, James
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH & POLICY, 2018, 23 (04) : 222 - 242
  • [28] Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Policy Assessment: A Tutorial
    Verguet, Stephane
    Kim, Jane J.
    Jamison, Dean T.
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2016, 34 (09) : 913 - 923
  • [29] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, EXTENDED DOMINANCE, AND ETHICS - A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT
    CANTOR, SB
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1994, 14 (03) : 259 - 265
  • [30] Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Policy Assessment: A Tutorial
    Stéphane Verguet
    Jane J. Kim
    Dean T. Jamison
    PharmacoEconomics, 2016, 34 : 913 - 923