The cost of failure: The economic impact of failed primary closure in classic bladder exstrophy.

PURPOSE: Failure of primary closure in classic bladder exstrophy (CBE) is a significant cause of morbidity, and yet its relative economic impact has not been well characterized. The authors aim to determine whether CBE patients who underwent failed primary closure incur greater economic burden in the year following their successful closure than those patients who underwent a successful primary closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval CBE patients who were successfully closed between 1993 and 2013 were identified in an institutional exstrophy-epispadias database. Patients who were never closed at the study institution and those who had no documented successful closure were excluded. Inpatient hospital charges, hospital costs, and professional fees were collected for the year following successful closure. RESULTS: 162 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and accounted for 312 inpatient admissions in the year following and including their respective successful bladder closures. 62 of the patients failed their primary closure and the remaining 100 succeeded. Adjusting for covariates, patients who underwent successful primary closure experienced a reduction in inpatient hospital charges of $8497, hospital costs of $9046 and professional fees of $11,180 in the year following their successful closure compared to those patients who failed their primary closure. CONCLUSION: Apart from the self-evident financial advantages of a successful primary closure, namely the avoidance of reclosure, there appears to be a lasting negative financial impact of failed primary closure even after these patients undergo successful reclosure at the study institution.

Safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy program.

OBJECTIVE: The frequency of bedside percutaneous tracheostomies is increasing in intensive care medicine, and both safety and efficiency of care are critical elements in continuing success of this procedure. Prioritizing patient safety, a tracheostomy team was created at our institution to provide bedside expertise in surgery, anesthesiology, respiratory, and technical support. This study was performed to evaluate the metrics of patient outcome, efficiency of care, and cost-benefit analysis of the multidisciplinary Johns Hopkins Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program. DESIGN: A review was performed for patients who received tracheostomies in 2004, the year before the Johns Hopkins Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program was established, and those who received tracheostomies in 2008, the year following the program's establishment. Comparative outcomes were evaluated, including the efficiency of procedure and intensive care unit length of stay, complication rate including bleeding, hypoxia, loss of airway, and a financial cost-benefit analysis. SETTING: Single-center, major university hospital. PATIENTS: The sample consisted of 363 patients who received a tracheostomy in the years 2004 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The number of percutaneous procedures increased from 59 of 126 tracheostomy patients in 2004, to 183 of 237 in 2008. There were significant decreases in the prevalence of procedural complications, particularly in the realm of airway injuries and physiologic disturbances. Regarding efficiency, the structured program reduced the time to tracheostomy and overall procedural time. The intensive care unit length of stay in nonpulmonary patients and improvement in intensive care unit and operating room back-fill efficiency contributed to an overall institutional financial benefit. CONCLUSIONS: An institutionally subsidized, multi-disciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy program can improve the quality of care in a cost-effective manner by decreasing the incidence of tracheostomy complications and improving both the time to tracheostomy, duration of procedure, and postprocedural intensive care unit stay.