Preventive child health care at elementary school age: The costs of routine assessments with a triage approach.

BACKGROUND: Triage in Preventive Child Health Care (PCH) assessments could further the efficient use of human resources and budgets and therefore make extra care possible for children with specific needs. We assessed the costs of routine PCH assessments with and without triage for children aged 5/6 years and 10/11 years. In a triage approach, PCH assistants conduct pre-assessments to identify children requiring follow-up assessments by a physician or nurse. In the usual approach, all children are assessed by a physician and an assistant (children aged 5/6 years) or a nurse (children aged 10/11 years). METHODS: All the direct costs of conducting routine PCH assessments with the triage and usual approach were assessed using a bottom-up micro-costing approach. In four PCH services in the Netherlands, two using triage and two the usual approach, professionals completed questionnaires about time spent on assessments, including time related to non-attendance at assessments, the referral of children and administration. RESULTS: The projected costs for PCH professionals working on PCH assessments amounted to €5.2 million per cohort of 100,000 children aged 5/6 years in the triage approach, and €7.6 million in the usual approach. The projected costs in both approaches for children aged 10/11 years were about €4 million per 100,000 children. CONCLUSION: The triage approach to PCH resulted in a projected cost reduction of about one-third, compared with usual practice, for routine assessments by physicians of children aged 5/6 years. There are minimal cost savings in the group of children aged 10/11 years when nurses are involved and so other considerations such as workforce shortages would be required to justify a change to a triage approach. Further research is needed to investigate the differences in costs of care after the completion of the routine assessments.

The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blind randomised multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cervical radicular syndrome due to disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment are offered surgical treatment. Anterior cervical discectomy is the standard procedure, often in combination with interbody fusion. Accelerated adjacent disc degeneration is a known entity on the long term. Recently, cervical disc prostheses are developed to maintain motion and possibly reduce the incidence of adjacent disc degeneration. A comparative cost-effectiveness study focused on adjacent segment degeneration and functional outcome has not been performed yet. We present the design of the NECK trial, a randomised study on cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in patients with cervical disc herniation. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients (age 18-65 years) presenting with radicular signs due to single level cervical disc herniation lasting more than 8 weeks are included. Patients will be randomised into 3 groups: anterior discectomy only, anterior discectomy with interbody fusion, and anterior discectomy with disc prosthesis. The primary outcome measure is symptomatic adjacent disc degeneration at 2 and 5 years after surgery. Other outcome parameters will be the Neck Disability Index, perceived recovery, arm and neck pain, complications, re-operations, quality of life, job satisfaction, anxiety and depression assessment, medical consumption, absenteeism, and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial, in which 3 surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses will be kept blinded of the allocated treatment for 2 years. The follow-up period is 5 years. DISCUSSION: Currently, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation. Whether additional interbody fusion or disc prosthesis is necessary and cost-effective will be determined by this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR1289.