An economic evaluation and incremental analysis of the cost effectiveness of three universal childhood varicella vaccination strategies for Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The cost effectiveness of childhood varicella vaccination is uncertain, as evidenced by variation in national health policies. Within the European Economic Area (EEA), only 10 of 30 countries offer universally funded childhood varicella vaccination. This study estimates the cost effectiveness of universal childhood varicella vaccination for one EEA country (Ireland), highlighting the difference in cost effectiveness between alternative vaccination strategies. METHODS: An age-structured dynamic transmission model, simulating varicella zoster virus transmission, was developed to analyse the impact of three vaccination strategies; one-dose at 12 months old, two-dose at 12 and 15 months old (short-interval), and two-dose at 12 months and five years old (long-interval). The analysis adopted an 80-year time horizon and considered payer and societal perspectives. Clinical effectiveness was based on cases of varicella and subsequently herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia avoided, and outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented in 2022 Irish Euro and cost effectiveness was interpreted with reference to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a one-dose strategy, compared with no vaccination, was estimated at €8,712 per QALY gained. The ICER for the next least expensive strategy, two-dose long-interval, compared with one-dose, was estimated at €45,090 per QALY gained. From a societal perspective, all three strategies were cost-saving compared with no vaccination; the two-dose short-interval strategy dominated, yielding the largest cost savings and health benefits. Results were stable across a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: A one-dose strategy was highly cost effective from the payer perspective, driven by a reduction in hospitalisations. Two-dose strategies were cost saving from the societal perspective. These results should be considered alongside other factors such as acceptability of a new vaccine within the overall childhood immunisation schedule, programme objectives and budget impact.

Protocol for a national cohort study to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: the brighter study.

INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction (BR) is offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. As most women will be long-term breast cancer survivors, high-quality information regarding the long-term outcomes of different BR procedures is essential to support informed decision-making. As different techniques vary considerably in cost, policymakers also require high-quality cost-effectiveness evidence to inform care. The Brighter study aims to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of implant-based and autologous BR and use health economic modelling to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of different reconstructive techniques. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Women undergoing mastectomy and/or BR following a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 will be identified from hospital episode statistics (HES). Surviving women will be contacted and invited to complete validated PRO measures including the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, or opt out of having their data included in the HES analysis. Long-term clinical outcomes will be explored using HES data. The primary outcome will be rates of revisional surgery between implant-based and autologous procedures. Secondary outcomes will include rates of secondary reconstruction and reconstruction failure. The long-term PROs of implant-based and autologous reconstruction will be compared using BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A scores. Multivariable regression will be used to examine the relationship between long-term outcomes, patient comorbidities, sociodemographic and treatment factors. A Markov model will be developed using HES and PRO data and published literature to compare the relative long-term cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous BR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Brighter study has been approved by the South-West -Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee (20/SW/0020), and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (20/CAG/0021). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national meetings. We will work with the professional associations, charities and patient groups to disseminate the results.

A micro costing analysis of the development of a primary care intervention to improve the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND: The application of economic analysis within implementation science is still developing and the cost of intervention development, which differs markedly from the costs of initial implementation and maintenance, is often overlooked. Our aim was to retrospectively cost the development of a multifaceted intervention in primary care to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening. METHODS: A retrospective micro costing of developing the intervention from the research funder perspective was conducted. It was based on a systematic intervention development process involving analysis of existing audit data and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), conducting consensus meetings with patients and HCPs, and using these data together with a rapid review of the effectiveness of interventions, to inform the final intervention. Both direct (non-personnel, e.g. travel, stationary, room hire) and indirect (personnel) costs were included. Data sources included researcher time logs, payroll data, salary scales, an online financial management system, invoices and purchase orders. Personnel involved in the intervention development were consulted to determine the activities they conducted and the duration of their involvement. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope. RESULTS: The total cost of intervention development (July 2014-January 2019) was €40,485 of which 78% were indirect (personnel) costs (€31,451). In total, personnel contributed 1368 h to intervention development. Highest cost activities were the patient interviews, and consensus process, contributing 23% and 34% of the total cost. Varying estimated time spent on intervention development activities by + 10% increased total intervention development cost by 6% to €42,982. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that intervention development requires a significant amount of human capital input, combining research experience, patient and public experience, and expert knowledge in relevant fields. The time committed to intervention development is critical but has a significant opportunity cost. With limited resources for research on developing and implementing interventions, capturing intervention development costs and incorporating them as part of assessment of cost-effective interventions, could inform research priority and resource allocation decisions.

Preoperative intravenous iron for anaemia in elective major open abdominal surgery: the PREVENTT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia affects 30-50% of patients before they undergo major surgery. Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased need for blood transfusion, postoperative complications and worse patient outcomes after surgery. International guidelines support the use of intravenous iron to correct anaemia in patients before surgery. However, the use of preoperative intravenous iron for patient benefit has not been assessed in the setting of a formal clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess if intravenous iron given to patients with anaemia before major abdominal surgery is beneficial by reducing transfusion rates, postoperative complications, hospital stay and re-admission to hospital, and improving quality of life outcomes. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, controlled, Phase III clinical trial, with 1 : 1 randomisation comparing placebo (normal saline) with intravenous iron (intravenous ferric carboxymaltose 1000 mg). Randomisation and treatment allocation were by a secure web-based service. SETTING: The study was conducted across 46 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales between September 2013 and September 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged > 18 years, undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery, with anaemia [Hb level of > 90 g/l and < 120 g/l (female patients) and < 130 g/l (male patients)] who could undergo randomisation and treatment 10-42 days before their operation. INTERVENTION: Double-blinded study comparing placebo of normal saline with 1000 mg of ferric carboxymaltose administered 10-42 days prior to surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary end points were risk of blood transfusion or death at 30 days postoperatively, and rate of blood transfusions at 30 days post operation. RESULTS: A total of 487 patients were randomised (243 given placebo and 244 given intravenous iron), of whom 474 completed the trial and provided data for the analysis of the co-primary end points. The use of intravenous iron increased preoperative Hb levels (mean difference 4.7 g/l, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 6.8 g/l; p < 0.0001), but had no effect compared with placebo on risk of blood transfusion or death (risk ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.37; p = 0.84; absolute risk difference +0.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 9.0%), or rates of blood transfusion (rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.43; p = 0.93; absolute rate difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.14 to 0.15). There was no difference in postoperative complications or hospital stay. The intravenous iron group had higher Hb levels at the 8-week follow-up (difference in mean 10.7 g/l, 95% confidence interval 7.8 to 13.7 g/l; p < 0.0001). There were a total of 71 re-admissions to hospital for postoperative complications in the placebo group, compared with 38 re-admissions in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.009). There were no differences between the groups in terms of mortality (two per group at 30 days post operation) or in any of the prespecified safety end points or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with anaemia prior to elective major abdominal surgery, there was no benefit from giving intravenous iron before the operation. FUTURE WORK: The impact of iron repletion on recovery from postoperative anaemia, and the association with reduced re-admission to hospital for complications, should be investigated. LIMITATIONS: In the preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia in major surgery (PREVENTT) trial, all patients included had anaemia and only 20% had their anaemia corrected before surgery. The definition and causality of iron deficiency in this setting is not clear. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67322816 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692418. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25 No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In patients undergoing major surgery, anaemia (low blood count) is a common problem. Anaemia is often a consequence of the disease necessitating surgery and can make people feel tired and unwell. Anaemia increases the need for a blood transfusion at the time of surgery, and patients with anaemia have more complications from surgery, prolonged hospital stay and delayed recovery. Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anaemia. An iron infusion has been shown to be effective to rapidly treat anaemia, but it is not known if this is effective in treating anaemia in the presurgical setting, and whether or not this may benefit patients. The main aim of this study was to assess if intravenous iron can treat anaemia in patients before major surgery and if this will reduce the need for blood transfusion, make patients feel better and, consequently, help them do better during and after surgery. A total of 487 patients with anaemia were recruited from 46 UK hospitals before major abdominal surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to receive an infusion of iron or placebo 10 days to 6 weeks before their surgery. Patients were followed up at 8 weeks and 6 months after their surgery. Intravenous iron increased the blood count in patients before surgery. There was no difference in blood transfusion rates or patient deaths between those who received intravenous iron and those who received placebo. Similarly, there was no difference in the patients' postoperative complications or length of hospital stay. Patients who received iron had a higher blood count at 8 weeks and 6 months post operation and there were fewer re-admissions to hospital for complications. In conclusion, for patients undergoing major surgery, giving intravenous iron to treat anaemia before the operation did not reduce the need for blood transfusion. Further work is needed to evaluate whether or not there is any benefit after discharge from hospital.

Preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia before major abdominal surgery (PREVENTT): a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia affects a high proportion of patients undergoing major elective surgery and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to test the hypothesis that intravenous iron given to anaemic patients before major open elective abdominal surgery would correct anaemia, reduce the need for blood transfusions, and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: In a double-blind, parallel-group randomised trial, we recruited adult participants identified with anaemia at preoperative hospital visits before elective major open abdominal surgery at 46 UK tertiary care centres. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin less than 130 g/L for men and 120 g/L for women. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) via a secure web-based service to receive intravenous iron or placebo 10-42 days before surgery. Intravenous iron was administered as a single 1000 mg dose of ferric carboxymaltose in 100 mL normal saline, and placebo was 100 mL normal saline, both given as an infusion over 15 min. Unblinded study personnel prepared and administered the study drug; participants and other clinical and research staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary endpoints were risk of the composite outcome of blood transfusion or death, and number of blood transfusions from randomisation to 30 days postoperatively. The primary analysis included all randomly assigned patients with data available for the primary endpoints; safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients according to the treatment received. This study is registered, ISRCTN67322816, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Of 487 participants randomly assigned to placebo (n=243) or intravenous iron (n=244) between Jan 6, 2014, and Sept 28, 2018, complete data for the primary endpoints were available for 474 (97%) individuals. Death or blood transfusion occurred in 67 (28%) of the 237 patients in the placebo group and 69 (29%) of the 237 patients in the intravenous iron group (risk ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·78-1·37; p=0·84). There were 111 blood transfusions in the placebo group and 105 in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·68-1·43; p=0·93). There were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the prespecified safety endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative intravenous iron was not superior to placebo to reduce need for blood transfusion when administered to patients with anaemia 10-42 days before elective major abdominal surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program.

Study protocol for the implementation and evaluation of the Self-harm Assessment and Management for General Hospitals programme in Ireland (SAMAGH).

BACKGROUND: Previous self-harm is one of the strongest predictors of future self-harm and suicide. Increased risk of repeated self-harm and suicide exists amongst patients presenting to hospital with high-risk self-harm and major self-harm repeaters. However, so far evidence-based training in the management of self-harm for mental health professionals is limited. Within this context, we aim to develop, implement and evaluate a training programme, SAMAGH, Self-harm Assessment and Management Programme for General Hospitals in Ireland. SAMAGH aims to (a) reduce hospital-based self-harm repetition rates and (b) increase rates of mental health assessments being conducted with self-harm patients. We also aim to evaluate the training on self-harm knowledge, attitudes, and skills related outcomes of healthcare professionals involved in the training. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will be conducted in three phases. First, the SAMAGH Training Programme has been developed, which comprises two parts: 1) E-learning Programme and 2) Simulation Training. Second, SAMAGH will be delivered to healthcare professionals from general hospitals in Ireland. Third, an outcome and process evaluation will be conducted using a pre-post design. The outcome evaluation will be conducted using aggregated data from the National Self-Harm Registry Ireland (NSHRI) on self-harm repetition rates from all 27 public hospitals in Ireland. Aggregated data based on the 3-year average (2016, 2017, 2018) self-harm repetition rates prior to the implementation of the SAMAGH will be used as baseline data, and NSHRI data from 6 and 12 months after the implementation of SAMAGH will be used as follow-up. For the process evaluation, questionnaires and focus groups will be administered and conducted with healthcare professionals who completed the training. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of an evidence informed training programme that aims to reduce repeated hospital self-harm presentations and to improve compliance with self-harm assessment and management. This study is also expected to contribute to self-harm and suicide training with the possibility of being translated to other settings. Its feasibility will be evaluated through a process evaluation.

Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND: 'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. METHODS: First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. RESULTS: We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

Feasibility of an implementation intervention to increase attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening: protocol for a cluster randomised pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) leads to the earlier detection of retinopathy and treatment that can prevent or delay the development of diabetes-related blindness. However, uptake continues to be sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. Routine management of type 2 diabetes largely takes place in primary care. As such, there may be an opportunity in primary care to introduce interventions to improve DRS uptake. However, few studies test the feasibility of interventions to enhance DRS uptake in this context. Our aim is to investigate the feasibility of an implementation intervention (IDEAs (Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance)) delivered in general practice to improve the uptake of the national DRS programme, RetinaScreen. METHODS: The IDEAs study is a cluster randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Following stratification by practice size, eight general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated to intervention (n = 4) or wait-list control groups (n = 4). The intervention will be delivered for 6 months, after which, it will be administered to wait-list control practices. The intervention is multi-faceted and comprises provider-level components (training, audit and feedback, health care professional prompt, reimbursement) and patient-level components (GP-endorsed reminder with information leaflet delivered opportunistically face-to-face, and systematically by phone and letter). Patient inclusion criteria are type 1 or type 2 diabetes and DRS programme non-attendance. A multi-method approach will be used to determine screening uptake, evaluate the trial and study procedures and examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention from staff and patient perspectives. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected on intervention uptake and delivery, research processes and outcomes. Data will be collected at the practice, health professional and patient level. A partial economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the cost of delivering the implementation intervention in general practice. Formal continuation criteria will be used to determine whether IDEAs should progress to a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: Findings will determine whether IDEAsis feasible and acceptable and will be used to refine the intervention and study procedures. A definitive trial will determine whether IDEAs is a cost-effective intervention to improve DRS uptake and reduce diabetes-related blindness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901898. Registered 3rd April 2019.

Variation in resource allocation in urgent and emergency Care Systems in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: A key challenge for most systems is how to provide effective access to urgent and emergency care across rural and urban populations. Tensions about the placement and scope of hospital emergency services are longstanding in Irish political life and there has been recent reform to centralise hospital services in some regions. The focus of this paper is a system approach to examine the geographic variation in resourcing and utilisation of such care across GP practices, out-of-hours care, ambulance services, Emergency Departments and Local Injury Units in Ireland. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional study design to evaluate variation in resource allocation by aggregating geographic funding to various elements of the urgent and emergency care system and assessing patterns in hospital resource utilisation across the population. Expenditure, staffing, access and activity data were gathered from government sources, individual facilities and service providers, health professional bodies, private firms and central statistics. Data on costs and activity in 2014 are collated and presented at both county and regional levels. Analyses focus on resources spent on urgent and emergency care across geographic areas, the role of population concentration in allocation, the relationship between pre-hospital spending and in-hospital spending, and the utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources by residents of each county. RESULTS: An array of funding mechanisms exists, resulting in a fragmented approach to the resourcing of urgent and emergency care. There are large differences in spending per capita at the county-level, ranging from between €50 and €200 per capita; however, these are less pronounced regionally. Distribution of hospital emergency care resources is highly skewed to the North East of the country, and away from the recently reconfigured South and Mid-West regions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis advances the traditional approach of evaluating individual services or hospital resourcing. There are notable differences in utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources at the regional level, indicating that populations within those regions which have been reconfigured have lower utilisation of hospital resources. There is a clear case for more integration in decision-making around funding and consideration of key principles, such as equity, to guide that process.

An empirical tool for estimating the share of unmet need due to healthcare inefficiencies, suboptimal access, and lack of effective technologies.

BACKGROUND: Although there has been growing attention to the measurement of unmet need, which is the overall epidemiological burden of disease, current measures ignore the burden that could be eliminated from technological advances or more effective use of current technologies. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework and empirical tool that separates unmet need from met need and subcategorizes the causes of unmet need into suboptimal access to and ineffective use of current technologies and lack of current technologies. Statistical models were used to model the relationship between health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and treatment utilization using data from the National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS). Predicted HR-QOL was combined with prevalence data from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) to estimate met need and the causes of unmet need due to morbidity in the US and EU5 for five diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis C, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). RESULTS: HR-QOL was positively correlated with adherence to medication and patient-perceived quality and negatively correlated with financial barriers. Met need was substantial across all disease and regions, although significant unmet need remains. While the majority of unmet need was driven by lack of technologies rather than ineffective use of current technologies, there was considerable variation across diseases and regions. Overall unmet need was largest for COPD, which had the highest prevalence of all diseases in this study. CONCLUSION: We developed a methodology that can inform decisions about which diseases to invest in and whether those investments should focus on improving access to currently available technologies or inventing new technologies.

Drivers of potentially avoidable emergency admissions in Ireland: an ecological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many emergency admissions are deemed to be potentially avoidable in a well-performing health system. OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact of population and health system factors on county-level variation in potentially avoidable emergency admissions in Ireland over the period 2014-2016. METHODS: Admissions data were used to calculate 2014-2016 age-adjusted emergency admission rates for selected conditions by county of residence. Negative binomial regression was used to identify which a priori factors were significantly associated with emergency admissions for these conditions and whether these factors were also associated with total/other emergency admissions. Standardised incidence rate ratios (IRRs) associated with a 1 SD change in risk factors were reported. RESULTS: Nationally, potentially avoidable emergency admissions for the period 2014-2016 (266 395) accounted for 22% of all emergency admissions. Of the population factors, a 1 SD change in the county-level unemployment rate was associated with a 24% higher rate of potentially avoidable emergency admissions (IRR: 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.41). Significant health system factors included emergency admissions with length of stay equal to 1 day (IRR: 1.20; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.30) and private health insurance coverage (IRR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.96). The full model accounted for 50% of unexplained variation in potentially avoidable emergency admissions in each county. Similar results were found across total/other emergency admissions. CONCLUSION: The results suggest potentially avoidable emergency admissions and total/other emergency admissions are primarily driven by socioeconomic conditions, hospital admission policy and private health insurance coverage. The distinction between potentially avoidable and all other emergency admissions may not be as useful as previously believed when attempting to identify the causes of regional variation in emergency admission rates.

Case fatality ratios for serious emergency conditions in the Republic of Ireland: a longitudinal investigation of trends over the period 2002-2014 using joinpoint analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, the Republic of Ireland has undertaken significant reconfiguration programmes to improve emergency services. During this time the public healthcare system experienced a large real decrease in resources. This study assesses national and regional population outcomes over the period 2002-2014, and whether changes coincide with system reconfiguration and the financial restrictions imposed by the 2008 recession. METHODS: Case fatality ratios (CFRs) were constructed for emergency conditions for 2002-2014. Total emergency conditions and individual condition trends were analysed nationally using joinpoint analysis. National results informed the investigation of trends at a regional and county level using an inverse standard error weighted generalised linear model with a log link to construct funnel plots. County-level CFRs were compared for the first and last 3 years of the period to further investigate the changes to county results over the 13 year period, specifically in comparison to the national-level CFR. RESULTS: Nationally, there was an annual fall in CFRs (2.1%). The decline was faster from 2002 to 2007 (annual percentage change = - 3.4; 95% CI-4.4, - 2.4), compared to 2007-2014 (annual percentage change = - 1.2; 95% CI -1.9, - 0.5). The South-East had a lower rate of decrease and the West had a higher rate. Cross sectional analysis of two periods (2002-2004 and 2012-2014) showed high consistency in the counties performance relative to the national CFR in both periods. CONCLUSION: Change in the national trend coincided with the onset of economic stress on the public health system. Attributing the decline in CFR improvement to economic factors is weakened by the uneven nature of the trend change. No distinct pattern of change was identified among regions which underwent substantial reconfiguration of emergency services.

Estimating the Cost of Preeclampsia in the Healthcare System: Cross-Sectional Study Using Data From SCOPE Study (Screening for Pregnancy End Points).

To estimate the cost of preeclampsia from the national health payer's perspective using secondary data from the SCOPE study (Screening for Pregnancy End Points). SCOPE is an international observational prospective study of healthy nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies. Using data from the Irish cohort recruited between November 2008 and February 2011, all women with preeclampsia and a 10% random sample of women without preeclampsia were selected. Additional health service use data were extracted from the consenting participants' medical records for maternity services which were not included in SCOPE. Unit costs were based on estimates from 3 existing Irish studies. Costs were extrapolated to a national level using a prevalence rate of 5% to 7% among nulliparous pregnancies. Within the cohort of 1774 women, 68 developed preeclampsia (3.8%) and 171 women were randomly selected as controls. Women with preeclampsia used higher levels of maternity services. The average cost of a pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia was €5243 per case compared with €2452 per case for an uncomplicated pregnancy. The national cost of preeclampsia is between €6.5 and €9.1 million per annum based on the 5% to 7% prevalence rate. Postpartum care was the largest contributor to these costs (€4.9-€6.9 million), followed by antepartum care (€0.9-€1.3 million) and peripartum care (€0.6-€0.7 million). Women with preeclampsia generate significantly higher maternity costs than women without preeclampsia. These cost estimates will allow policy-makers to efficiently allocate resources for this pregnancy-specific condition. Moreover, these estimates are useful for future research assessing the cost-effectiveness of preeclampsia screening and treatment.

Understanding perspectives on major system change: A comparative case study of public engagement and the implementation of urgent and emergency care system reconfiguration.

OBJECTIVES: Major changes have been made to how emergency care services are configured in several regions in the Republic of Ireland. This study investigated the hypothesis that engagement activities undertaken prior to these changes influenced stakeholder perspectives on the proposed changes and impacted on the success of implementation. METHODS: A comparative case-study approach was used to explore the changes in three regions. These regions were chosen for the case study as the nature of the proposals to reconfigure care provision were broadly similar but implementation outcomes varied considerably. Documentary analysis of reconfiguration planning reports was used to identify planned public engagement activities. Semi-structured interviews with 74 purposively-sampled stakeholders explored their perspectives on reconfiguration, engagement activities and public responses to reconfiguration. Framework analysis was used, integrating inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Approaches to public engagement and success of implementation differed considerably across the three cases. Regions that presented the public with the reconfiguration plan alone reported greater public opposition and difficulty in implementing changes. Engagement activities that included a range of stakeholders and continued throughout the reconfiguration process appeared to largely address public concerns, contributing to smoother implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The presentation of reconfiguration reports alone is not enough to convince communities of the case for change. Genuine, ongoing and inclusive engagement offers the best opportunity to address community concerns about reconfiguration.

Study protocol for evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of an emergency department longitudinal patient monitoring system using a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of patient deterioration is a key element of patient safety as it allows timely clinical intervention and potential rescue, thus reducing the risks of serious patient safety incidents. Longitudinal patient monitoring systems have been widely recommended for use to detect clinical deterioration. However, there is conflicting evidence on whether they improve patient outcomes. This may in part be related to variation in the rigour with which they are implemented and evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a longitudinal patient monitoring system designed for adult patients in the unique environment of the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: A novel participatory action research (PAR) approach is taken where socio-technical systems (STS) theory and analysis informs the implementation through the improvement methodology of 'Plan Do Study Act' (PDSA) cycles. We hypothesise that conducting an STS analysis of the ED before beginning the PDSA cycles will provide for a much richer understanding of the current situation and possible challenges to implementing the ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system. This methodology will enable both a process and an outcome evaluation of implementing the ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system. Process evaluations can help distinguish between interventions that have inherent faults and those that are badly executed. DISCUSSION: Over 1.2 million patients attend EDs annually in Ireland; the successful implementation of an ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system has the potential to affect the care of a significant number of such patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study combining PAR, STS and multiple PDSA cycles to evaluate the implementation of an ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system and to determine (through process and outcome evaluation) whether this system can significantly improve patient outcomes by early detection and appropriate intervention for patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

Utilisation patterns and cost of hospital care for people living with HIV in Ireland in 2012: a single-centre study.

Data on the pattern and cost of health service use by HIV patients are required for evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of new drugs and technologies as well as being essential for service planning. The aim of this study was to identify the utilisation patterns and cost of hospital care for HIV patients in a single centre in Ireland in 2012. Data on the frequency and non-drug costs of all hospital resources used by HIV patients were extracted from a hospital activity-based costing system. Cost data were analysed using a generalised linear model. A total of 328 patients, 3672 patient months, were included in this study. Patients had a mean of 4.4 scheduled infectious disease outpatient appointments per patient year; 37% of patients also used another outpatient service, 15% in-patient services, 4% day-case service and 18% emergency department services in 2012. Patients with very advanced HIV disease continue to incur a disproportionate amount of the total cost of providing care. This study provides baseline utilisation and cost data for use of both infectious-disease and non-infectious disease hospital services and will be useful for service planning in light of the likely increases in resource demands.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Breast Cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative.

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.

Resource utilisation and cost of ambulatory HIV care in a regional HIV centre in Ireland: a micro-costing study.

BACKGROUND: It is anticipated that demands on ambulatory HIV services will increase in coming years as a consequence of the increased life expectancy of HIV patients on highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). Accurate cost data are needed to enable evidence based policy decisions be made about new models of service delivery, new technologies and new medications. METHODS: A micro-costing study was carried out in an HIV outpatient clinic in a single regional centre in the south of Ireland. The costs of individual appointment types were estimated based on staff grade and time. Hospital resources used by HIV patients who attended the ambulatory care service in 2012 were identified and extracted from existing hospital systems. Associations between patient characteristics and costs per patient month, in 2012 euros, were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The average cost of providing ambulatory HIV care was found to be €973 (95% confidence interval €938-€1008) per patient month in 2012. Sensitivity analysis, varying the base-case staff time estimates by 20% and diagnostic testing costs by 60%, estimated the average cost to vary from a low of €927 per patient month to a high of €1019 per patient month. The vast majority of costs were due to the cost of HAART. Women were found to have significantly higher HAART costs per patient month while patients over 50 years of age had significantly lower HAART costs using multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the estimated cost of ambulatory care in a regional HIV centre in Ireland. These data are valuable for planning services at a local level, and the identification of patient factors, such as age and gender, associated with resource use is of interest both nationally and internationally for the long-term planning of HIV care provision.

The influence of partial public reimbursement on vaccination uptake in the older population: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Flu vaccination is recommended annually for high risk groups. However, in Ireland, free access to vaccination is not universal for those in high risk groups; the vaccine and consultation are only free for those with a medical card, a means tested scheme. Few private health insurance policies cover the cost of attendance for vaccination in general practice. The aim was to examine the influence of this reimbursement policy on vaccination coverage among older adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional wave 1 data from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) were analysed (2009-2011). TILDA is a nationally representative prospective cohort study of adults aged ≥50, sampled using multistage stratified clustered sampling. Self-reported entitlement to healthcare was categorised as 1) medical card only 2) private health insurance only, 3) both and 4) neither. The outcome was responses to 'have you ever had a flu shot'. Multivariate logistic regression was used, adjusting for age and need. RESULTS: 68.6% of those defined as clinically high-risk received the flu vaccination in the past (95% CI = 67-71%). Those with a medical card were almost twice as likely to have been vaccinated, controlling for age and chronic illness (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.5-2.5, p = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Having a medical card increased the likelihood of being vaccinated, independent of age and need. The mismatch between vaccination guidelines and reimbursement policy is creating unequal access to recommended services among high risk groups.