Does cost feedback modify demand for common blood tests in secondary care? A prospective controlled intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural insights or 'nudge' theory suggests that non-directional interventions may be used to modify human behaviour. We have tested the hypothesis that the provision of the cost of common blood tests with their results may modify subsequent demand for blood assays. METHODS: The study design was a prospective controlled intervention study. The individual and annual institutional cost of full blood count (FBC), urea and electrolytes (U&E) and liver function test (LFT) blood assays were added to the electronic results system for inpatients at the intervention teaching hospital, but not the control hospital. RESULTS: In the 12 months after the intervention was implemented, demand for FBC dropped by 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1-5; p<0.001), U&E by 2% (95% CI 0-4; p=0.054) and there was no change in demand for LFT compared to the control institution. CONCLUSIONS: Providing cost feedback to clinicians for commonly used blood tests is a viable intervention that is associated with small reductions in demand for some, but not all blood assays. As this is an easily scalable approach, this has potential to enable efficient healthcare delivery, while also minimising the morbidity experienced by the patient.

An evaluation of a price transparency intervention for two commonly prescribed medications on total institutional expenditure: a prospective study.

Providing feedback on cost has been demonstrated to decrease drug demand from clinicians. We conducted a prospective study with a step-wise intervention to test the hypothesis that providing information on the cost of drugs to clinicians would modify total expenditure. Participants included individuals who were admitted to the Royal Derby Hospital from -November 2013 to November 2015 under the care of physicians. The cost of all antibiotics and inhaled corticosteroids was added to the electronic prescribing system. The main outcome was the weekly cost for antibiotics and inhaled corticosteroids in the intervention period compared to baseline costs. Mean weekly expenditure on antibiotics per patient decreased by £3.75 (95% confidence intervals [CI] -6.52 to -0.98) after the intervention from a pre-intervention mean of £26.44, and then slowly increased subsequently by £0.10/week (95% CI +0.02 to +0.18). Mean weekly expenditure on inhaled corticosteroids per patient did not substantially change after the intervention (-£0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 after the intervention from a pre-intervention mean of £5.29 per person). New clinical guidelines for inhaled corticosteroids were associated with a decrease in weekly expenditure, but provision of feedback on drug costs resulted in no sustained change in institutional expenditure. However, clinical guidelines have the potential to modify clinical prescribing behaviour.

Frequency of stepping down antibiotics and nebuliser treatment is lower at weekends compared to weekdays: an observational study.

We hypothesised that delays in providing non-urgent medication step-downs at weekends to medical management may be associated with increased length of stay.In a novel use of electronic prescribing data, we analysed emergency admissions from a busy acute medical hospital over 52 weeks from November 2014 to October 2015. The main outcomes of interest were switching from intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics and stopping nebulised bronchodilators. The rate of switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics was lower on Saturdays and Sundays compared with weekdays, and the rate of stopping nebulised bronchodilators was similarly lower at weekends (p<0.001). Median length of stay was shorter in those whose antibiotic treatment was stepped down at weekends compared with weekdays (4 days versus 5 days, p<0.001). Reduced medication step-downs at weekends may represent a bottleneck in patient flow. Electronic prescribing data are a valuable resource for future health services research.

Does a specialist unit improve outcomes for hospitalized patients with Parkinson's disease?

OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal management of Parkinson's disease (PD) medication in hospital may lead to avoidable complications. We introduced an in-patient PD unit for those admitted urgently with general medical problems. We explored the effect of the unit on medication management, length of stay and patient experience. METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective feasibility study. The unit's core features were defined following consultation with patients and professionals: specially trained staff, ready availability of PD drugs, guidelines, and care led by a geriatrician with specialty PD training. Mandatory staff training comprised four 1 h sessions: PD symptoms; medications; therapy; communication and swallowing. Most medication was prescribed using an electronic Prescribing and Administration system (iSOFT) which provided accurate data on time of administration. We compared patient outcomes before and after introduction of the unit. RESULTS: The general ward care (n = 20) and the Specialist Parkinson's Unit care (n = 24) groups had similar baseline characteristics. On the specialist unit: less Parkinson's medication was omitted (13% vs 20%, p < 0.001); of the medication that was given, more was given on time (64% vs 50%, p < 0.001); median length of stay was shorter (9 days vs 13 days, p = 0.043) and patients' experience of care was better (p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: If replicated and generalizable to other hospitals, reductions in length of stay would lead to significant cost savings. The apparent improved outcomes with Parkinson's unit care merit further investigation. We hope to test the hypothesis that specialized units are cost-effective and improve patient care using a randomized controlled trial design.