Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

Potential Avoidable Costs of Low-Value Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care in an Integrated Canadian Provincial Trauma System.

This economic evaluation estimated the direct health care costs associated with 11 low-value clinical practices in acute trauma care in the integrated health care system of Quebec, Canada.

Test-retest reliability of the Cost for Patients Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the test-retest reliability of the Costs for Patients Questionnaire (CoPaQ). METHODS: Through an online survey, individuals were invited to participate in a two-step study to assess the test-retest reliability of the CoPaQ. Participants to the first step were invited to complete the questionnaire a second time 2 weeks after. Reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen's Kappa coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for discrete and continuous data, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: From a total of 1,200 participants who completed the first test, 403 completed the second test. The ICC varied from -0.00 to 0.98 with poor, moderate, good, and excellent results. The Kappa coefficients varied from -0.004 to 0.65 and were poor, slight, fair, moderate, and substantial. The sensitivity analysis showed the median value of ICC and Kappa coefficients for each category before and after the outliers' exclusion. The median value of ICC changed from 0.30 (before) to 0.70 (after), and from 0.12 (before) to 0.04 (after), respectively, for each category. The median value of the Cohen's Kappa coefficient increased from 0.44 (before) to 0.46 (after) and decreased from 0.32 (before) to 0.30 (after), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Test-retest reliability results indicated that the CoPaQ has a moderate reliability in terms of ICC and Kappa coefficients. The moderate reliability observed gives additional support for the applicability of this tool in economic evaluations of health interventions. Additional studies including on other properties and a cultural adaptation could further enhance the use of the tool.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in injury care: protocol for a 10-year systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. Injuries are second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of acute care costs but data on the economic impact of clinical practices for injury admissions are lacking. This study aims to summarise evidence on the economic value of intrahospital clinical practices for injury care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review to identify research articles in economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in acute injury care. We will search MEDLINE and databases such as Embase, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS and CINAHL for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary. We will consider the following outcomes relative to economic evaluations: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net health benefit, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) and incremental cost-benefit ratio. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies that meet eligibility criteria and extract data from included articles using an electronic data extraction form. All outcomes will be converted into iNMB. We will report iNMB for practices classified by type of practice (hospitalisation, consultation, diagnostic, therapeutic-surgical, therapeutic-drugs, therapeutic-other). Results obtained with a ceiling ratio of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained for identified clinical practices will be summarised by charting forest plots. In line with Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, meta-analyses will not be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will summarise existing evidence on the economic value of clinical practices in injury care. Results will be used to advance knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions and will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed article, international scientific meetings and clinical and healthcare quality associations.

A Systematic Review of Methods Used for Confounding Adjustment in Observational Economic Evaluations in Cardiology Conducted between 2013 and 2017.

Background. Observational economic evaluations (i.e., economic evaluations in which treatment allocation is not randomized) are prone to confounding bias. Prior reviews published in 2013 have shown that adjusting for confounding is poorly done, if done at all. Although these reviews raised awareness on the issues, it is unclear if their results improved the methodological quality of future work. We therefore aimed to investigate whether and how confounding was accounted for in recently published observational economic evaluations in the field of cardiology. Methods. We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases using a set of Medical Subject Headings and keywords covering topics in "observational economic evaluations in health within humans" and "cardiovascular diseases." Any study published in either English or French between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, addressing our search criteria was eligible for inclusion in our review. Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112391). Results. Forty-two (0.6%) out of 7523 unique citations met our inclusion criteria. Fewer than half of the selected studies adjusted for confounding (n = 19 [45.2%]). Of those that adjusted for confounding, propensity score matching (n = 8 [42.1%]) and other matching-based approaches were favored (n = 8 [42.1%]). Our results also highlighted that most authors who adjusted for confounding rarely justified their methodological choices. Conclusion. Our results indicate that adjustment for confounding is often ignored when conducting an observational economic evaluation. Continued knowledge translation efforts aimed at improving researchers' knowledge regarding confounding bias and methods aimed at addressing this issue are required and should be supported by journal editors.