Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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.
Afiliación
  • Goldstein LN; Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. drg666@gmail.com.
  • Wells M; Department of Emergency Medical Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. drg666@gmail.com.
  • Vincent-Lambert C; Department of Emergency Medical Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ; 27(1): 110, 2019 Dec 11.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31829227
ABSTRACT

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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital / Pruebas en el Punto de Atención Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Observational_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA DE EMERGENCIA / TRAUMATOLOGIA Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Sudáfrica

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital / Pruebas en el Punto de Atención Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Observational_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA DE EMERGENCIA / TRAUMATOLOGIA Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Sudáfrica