Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
Add more filters

Complementary Medicines
Publication year range
2.
Value Health ; 22(9): 977-980, 2019 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31511186

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Value assessment frameworks have emerged as tools to assist healthcare decision makers in the United States in assessing the relative value of healthcare services and treatments. As more healthcare decision makers in the United States-including state government agencies, pharmacy benefit managers, employers, and health plans-publicly consider the adoption of value frameworks, it is increasingly important to critically evaluate their ability to accurately measure value and reliably inform decision making. OBJECTIVE: To examine the evolution of the value assessment landscape in the past two years, including new entrants and updated frameworks, and assess if these changes successfully advance the field of value assessment. METHODS: We analyzed the progress of the three currently active value assessment frameworks developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Innovation and Value Initiative, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, against six key areas of concern. RESULTS: Value assessment frameworks are moving closer to meeting the challenge of accurately measuring value and reliably informing healthcare decisions. Each of the six concerns has been addressed in some way by at least one framework. CONCLUSIONS: Although value assessments are potential inputs that can be considered for healthcare decision making, none of them should be the sole input for these decisions. Considering the limitations, they should, at most, be only one of many tools in the toolbox.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Budgets , Decision Making , Humans , Models, Economic , Patient Preference , Patient-Centered Care/economics , Reproducibility of Results , United States
3.
Midwifery ; 77: 144-154, 2019 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31330402

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare neonatal and maternal outcomes, and the relative risk of interventions between mothers attended to by midwives, general practitioners, and obstetricians, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the employee-model of midwifery-led care in Nova Scotia, Canada, when compared with general practitioners. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was a retrospective cohort study involving routinely collected clinical and administrative data from all low-risk births from January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2017. There were 24,662 observations. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the mother's socio-demographic characteristics. We used a nearest-neighbour matching estimator in assessing differences in outcomes, and generalized linear models in the estimation of the risks of interventions, adjusting for potential confounders. An analytic decision tree served as the vehicle for the cost-effectiveness analysis, assessed using the net monetary benefit approach. All health care resources utilized were measured and valued. Neonatal intensive care admissions avoided was the measure of outcome. We performed probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analyses. FINDINGS: Mothers attended to by midwives spent less time at the hospital during birth admissions, were less likely to have interventions, instrumental births, and more likely to have exclusive breastfeeding at discharge from birth admission. There were no differences in Apgar scores and neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The employee-model of midwifery-led care was found to be cost-effective. KEY CONCLUSIONS: The midwifery program is both effective and cost-effective for low-risk pregnancies IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Increasing the number of midwives will increase access and represents value for money.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Midwifery/methods , Practice Patterns, Nurses'/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Adult , Cohort Studies , Cost-Benefit Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Midwifery/organization & administration , Midwifery/statistics & numerical data , Nova Scotia , Practice Patterns, Nurses'/organization & administration , Practice Patterns, Nurses'/statistics & numerical data , Pregnancy , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies
4.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 19(1): 370, 2019 Jun 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31185997

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive assessment of integrated care deployment constitutes a major challenge to ensure quality, sustainability and transferability of both healthcare policies and services in the transition toward a coordinated service delivery scenario. To this end, the manuscript articulates four different protocols aiming at assessing large-scale implementation of integrated care, which are being developed within the umbrella of the regional project Nextcare (2016-2019), undertaken to foster innovation in technologically-supported services for chronic multimorbid patients in Catalonia (ES) (7.5 M inhabitants). Whereas one of the assessment protocols is designed to evaluate population-based deployment of care coordination at regional level during the period 2011-2017, the other three are service-based protocols addressing: i) Home hospitalization; ii) Prehabilitation for major surgery; and, iii) Community-based interventions for frail elderly chronic patients. All three services have demonstrated efficacy and potential for health value generation. They reflect different implementation maturity levels. While full coverage of the entire urban health district of Barcelona-Esquerra (520 k inhabitants) is the main aim of home hospitalization, demonstration of sustainability at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona constitutes the core goal of the prehabilitation service. Likewise, full coverage of integrated care services addressed to frail chronic patients is aimed at the city of Badalona (216 k inhabitants). METHODS: The population-based analysis, as well as the three service-based protocols, follow observational and experimental study designs using a non-randomized intervention group (integrated care) compared with a control group (usual care) with a propensity score matching method. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the interventions using a Quadruple aim approach is a central outcome in all protocols. Moreover, multi-criteria decision analysis is explored as an innovative method for health delivery assessment. The following additional dimensions will also be addressed: i) Determinants of sustainability and scalability of the services; ii) Assessment of the technological support; iii) Enhanced health risk assessment; and, iv) Factors modulating service transferability. DISCUSSION: The current study offers a unique opportunity to undertake a comprehensive assessment of integrated care fostering deployment of services at regional level. The study outcomes will contribute refining service workflows, improving health risk assessment and generating recommendations for service selection. TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03130283 (date released 04/06/2018), NCT03768050 (date released 12/05/2018), NCT03767387 (date released 12/05/2018).


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/standards , Aged , Clinical Protocols , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Female , Health Services Research , Humans , Male , Observational Studies as Topic , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Spain
5.
BMC Geriatr ; 18(1): 173, 2018 08 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30071842

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in primary healthcare is the substantial increase in the proportion of frail community-dwelling older persons with long-term conditions and multiple complex needs. Consequently, a fundamental transformation of current models of primary care by means of implementing proactive integrated care is necessary. Therefore, an understanding of the effects of integrated primary care approaches and underlying mechanisms is essential. This article presents the design of a theory-based evaluation of an integrated primary care approach to improve well-being among frail community-living older adults, which is called "Finding and Follow-up of Frail older persons" (FFF). First, we present a theoretical model to facilitate a sound theory-guided evaluation of integrated primary care approaches for frail community-dwelling older people. The model incorporates interrelated elements of integrated primary care approaches (e.g. proactive case finding and self-management support). Efforts to improve primary care should integrate these promising components to assure productive patient-professional interactions and to improve well-being. Moreover, cognitive and behavioral components of healthcare professionals and patients are assumed to be important. Second, we present the design of the study to evaluate the FFF approach which consists of the following key components: (1) proactive case finding, (2) case management, (3) medication review, (4) self-management support, and (5) working in multidisciplinary care teams. METHODS: The longitudinal evaluation study has a matched quasi-experimental design with one pretest and one posttest (12 month follow-up) and is conducted in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2017. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used to evaluate effectiveness, processes, and cost-effectiveness. In total, 250 frail older persons (75 years and older) of 11 GP (general practitioner) practices that implemented the FFF approach are compared with 250 frail older patients of 4 GP practices providing care as usual. In addition, data are collected from healthcare professionals. Outcome measures are based on our theoretical model. DISCUSSION: The proposed evaluation study will reveal insight into the (cost)effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of the proactive integrated primary care approach FFF. A major strength of the study is the comprehensive evaluation based on a theoretical framework. The quasi-experimental design presents some challenges.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/methods , Frail Elderly , Independent Living/standards , Primary Health Care/standards , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/standards , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Frail Elderly/psychology , Health Personnel/economics , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Independent Living/economics , Independent Living/psychology , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Netherlands/epidemiology , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/methods
6.
Value Health ; 21(8): 938-943, 2018 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30098671

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The English National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) require evidence that a new medicine represents value for money before being publicly funded. NICE has an explicit threshold for cost effectiveness, whereas PBAC does not. We compared the initial incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by manufacturers in matched submissions to each decision-making body, with the aim of exploring the impact of an explicit threshold on these ICERs. METHODS: Data were extracted from matched submissions from 2005 to 2015. The ICERs in these submissions were compared within each pair and with respect to a cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: Fifty-eight pairs of matched submissions were identified. The median difference between the ICERs ($2635/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was significantly greater than zero (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = 0.0299), indicating that the proposed ICERs in the submissions to NICE were higher than those in the matched submissions to PBAC. On 93% of occasions, NICE ICERs were within -$17,772 to +$48,422 of the corresponding PBAC ones (Bland-Altman analysis), demonstrating poor agreement. When an implicit threshold of AUD$50,000/QALY was assumed for PBAC decision making, only eight pairs of submissions had discordant ICERs falling above or below the respective threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The significantly higher ICERs in the submissions to NICE than those to PBAC may be a consequence of NICE's explicit willingness-to-pay threshold, and/or other health system factors. Industry may be assuming an implicit threshold for PBAC when constructing their ICERs despite the lack of acknowledgement of such a threshold.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Decision Making , Australia , Health Policy , Humans , National Health Programs/economics , National Health Programs/organization & administration , Quality Improvement/economics , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , United Kingdom
7.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 36(8): 957-971, 2018 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29736895

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality. RESULTS: Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.


Subject(s)
Asthma/economics , Biological Therapy/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Anti-Asthmatic Agents/economics , Anti-Asthmatic Agents/therapeutic use , Asthma/drug therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Humans
8.
Lancet ; 391(10137): 2368-2383, 2018 06 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29573872

ABSTRACT

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/prevention & control , Low Back Pain/prevention & control , Pain Management/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , United States Public Health Service/standards , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Diagnostic Imaging/economics , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/economics , Low Back Pain/surgery , Low Back Pain/therapy , Male , Pain Management/economics , United States/epidemiology
9.
JAMA Oncol ; 4(2): 252-253, 2018 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29167859
10.
Occup Med (Lond) ; 67(9): 687-695, 2017 12 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29202204

ABSTRACT

Background: Back pain and musculoskeletal conditions negatively affect the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of employees and generate substantial costs to employers. Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of yoga for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: A randomized controlled trial evaluated an 8-week yoga programme, with a 6-month follow-up, for National Health Service (NHS) employees. Effectiveness in managing musculoskeletal conditions was assessed using repeated-measures generalized linear modelling for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. Cost-effectiveness was determined using area-under-the-curve linear regression for assessing HRQL from healthcare and societal perspectives. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was also calculated. Sickness absence was measured using electronic staff records at 6 months. Results: There were 151 participants. At 6 months, mean differences between groups favouring yoga were observed for RDQ [-0.63 (95% CI, -1.78, 0.48)], Keele STarT [-0.28 (95% CI, -0.97, 0.07)] and HRQL (0.016 QALY gain). From a healthcare perspective, yoga yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2103 per QALY. Given a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20 000, the probability of yoga being cost-effective was 95%. From a societal perspective, yoga was the dominant treatment compared with usual care. At 6 months, electronic staff records showed that yoga participants missed a total of 2 working days due to musculoskeletal conditions compared with 43 days for usual care participants. Conclusions: Yoga for NHS employees may enhance HRQL, reduce disability associated with back pain, lower sickness absence due to musculoskeletal conditions and is likely to be cost-effective.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Musculoskeletal Diseases/therapy , Yoga/psychology , Adult , Cost-Benefit Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Musculoskeletal Diseases/psychology , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Psychometrics/methods , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , State Medicine/organization & administration , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workplace/psychology , Workplace/standards
11.
Palliat Med ; 31(4): 306-322, 2017 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28190374

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care. AIM: To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care. DESIGN: The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. FINDINGS: Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied. CONCLUSION: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to-in addition to the EQ-5D- make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Palliative Care/economics , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Humans
14.
Health Technol Assess ; 19(14): 1-503, v-vi, 2015 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25692211

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis involves the comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new technology, which is more costly than existing alternatives, with the cost-effectiveness threshold. This indicates whether or not the health expected to be gained from its use exceeds the health expected to be lost elsewhere as other health-care activities are displaced. The threshold therefore represents the additional cost that has to be imposed on the system to forgo 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of health through displacement. There are no empirical estimates of the cost-effectiveness threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. OBJECTIVES: (1) To provide a conceptual framework to define the cost-effectiveness threshold and to provide the basis for its empirical estimation. (2) Using programme budgeting data for the English NHS, to estimate the relationship between changes in overall NHS expenditure and changes in mortality. (3) To extend this mortality measure of the health effects of a change in expenditure to life-years and to QALYs by estimating the quality-of-life (QoL) associated with effects on years of life and the additional direct impact on QoL itself. (4) To present the best estimate of the cost-effectiveness threshold for policy purposes. METHODS: Earlier econometric analysis estimated the relationship between differences in primary care trust (PCT) spending, across programme budget categories (PBCs), and associated disease-specific mortality. This research is extended in several ways including estimating the impact of marginal increases or decreases in overall NHS expenditure on spending in each of the 23 PBCs. Further stages of work link the econometrics to broader health effects in terms of QALYs. RESULTS: The most relevant 'central' threshold is estimated to be £12,936 per QALY (2008 expenditure, 2008-10 mortality). Uncertainty analysis indicates that the probability that the threshold is < £20,000 per QALY is 0.89 and the probability that it is < £30,000 per QALY is 0.97. Additional 'structural' uncertainty suggests, on balance, that the central or best estimate is, if anything, likely to be an overestimate. The health effects of changes in expenditure are greater when PCTs are under more financial pressure and are more likely to be disinvesting than investing. This indicates that the central estimate of the threshold is likely to be an overestimate for all technologies which impose net costs on the NHS and the appropriate threshold to apply should be lower for technologies which have a greater impact on NHS costs. LIMITATIONS: The central estimate is based on identifying a preferred analysis at each stage based on the analysis that made the best use of available information, whether or not the assumptions required appeared more reasonable than the other alternatives available, and which provided a more complete picture of the likely health effects of a change in expenditure. However, the limitation of currently available data means that there is substantial uncertainty associated with the estimate of the overall threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The methods go some way to providing an empirical estimate of the scale of opportunity costs the NHS faces when considering whether or not the health benefits associated with new technologies are greater than the health that is likely to be lost elsewhere in the NHS. Priorities for future research include estimating the threshold for subsequent waves of expenditure and outcome data, for example by utilising expenditure and outcomes available at the level of Clinical Commissioning Groups as well as additional data collected on QoL and updated estimates of incidence (by age and gender) and duration of disease. Nonetheless, the study also starts to make the other NHS patients, who ultimately bear the opportunity costs of such decisions, less abstract and more 'known' in social decisions. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research-Medical Research Council Methodology Research Programme.


Subject(s)
Cost of Illness , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Health Policy/economics , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , State Medicine/economics , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/economics , Age Distribution , Cause of Death/trends , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Female , Financing, Government/economics , Financing, Government/standards , Humans , Life Expectancy/trends , Male , Models, Econometric , Mortality, Premature/trends , Needs Assessment , Population Dynamics , Sex Distribution , State Medicine/standards , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/methods , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/standards , United Kingdom
15.
Gesundheitswesen ; 77(12): e184-93, 2015 Dec.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25232745

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Transparency of economic performance of integrated care systems (IV) is a basic requirement for the acceptance and further development of integrated care. Diverse evaluation methods are used but are seldom openly discussed because of the proprietary nature of the different business models. The aim of this article is to develop a generic model for measuring economic performance of IV interventions. METHODS: A catalogue of five quality criteria is used to discuss different evaluation methods -(uncontrolled before-after-studies, control group-based approaches, regression models). On this -basis a best practice model is proposed. RESULTS: A regression model based on the German morbidity-based risk structure equalisation scheme (MorbiRSA) has some benefits in comparison to the other methods mentioned. In particular it requires less resources to be implemented and offers advantages concerning the relia-bility and the transparency of the method (=important for acceptance). Also validity is sound. Although RCTs and - also to a lesser -extent - complex difference-in-difference matching approaches can lead to a higher validity of the results, their feasibility in real life settings is limited due to economic and practical reasons. That is why central criticisms of a MorbiRSA-based model were addressed, adaptions proposed and incorporated in a best practice model: Population-oriented morbidity adjusted margin improvement model (P-DBV(MRSA)). CONCLUSION: The P-DBV(MRSA) approach may be used as a standardised best practice model for the economic evaluation of IV. Parallel to the proposed approach for measuring economic performance a balanced, quality-oriented performance measurement system should be introduced. This should prevent incentivising IV-players to undertake short-term cost cutting at the expense of quality.


Subject(s)
Benchmarking/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/standards , Models, Economic , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Benchmarking/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Germany , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/economics , Science/standards
17.
Rev. Rol enferm ; 32(12): 801-807, dic. 2009. ilus
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-76277

ABSTRACT

El uso de los recuperadores postoperatorios, sobre todo en cirugía ortopédica, es una práctica habitual en nuestros días. Las enfermeras tienen un especial protagonismo en su manipulación; por ello se comentan las razones para el empleo de estos dispositivos. También se exponen las diferentes evidencias científicas tras revisión bibliográfica sobre la efectividad de estos sistemas, la utilidad, la calidad del producto, el coste beneficio y la ausencia de efectos indeseables. Se concluye que existe un determinado perfil de paciente que se beneficia del empleo de este tipo de dispositivos. Tras unos años de alta implantación, se produce actualmente un ligero descenso en su uso debido, en primer lugar, al empleo prequirúrgico de agentes hematínicos y, en segundo lugar, al desarrollo de ciertas técnicas quirúrgicas menos invasivas. A pesar de ello, este procedimiento se ha demostrado como coste efectivo. El rol de las enfermeras en su manejo es importante y combinado con otras medidas (como el uso de dispositivos de análisis de la hemoglobina en cabecera del paciente) puede contribuir a una mejor gestión de los requerimientos transfusionales(AU)


The authors presented this report at the Apheresis Workshop at the Mexican Congress on Transfusions. VI Annual Congress AMMTAC in Monterrey, Nuevo León district. The use of post operatory recuperators, especially in orthopedic surgery, is a habitual practice nowadays. Nurses play a special role in their handling and use; therefore, the authors comment on the reasons why these devices should be used. The authors also state different scientific evidence, based on a bibliographical review, regarding the effectiveness of these systems, their utility, their product quality, their cost benefit, and the absence of undesirable effects. The authors conclude that there is a determined patient profile for when a patient benefits from the use of these devices. After some years of high use, at present times, there has been a reduction in using these devices due to, firstly, the pre-surgical use of hematin agents, and secondly, due to the development of certain less invasive surgical techniques. In spite of this, this procedure has proven to be cost effective. Nurses have an important role in the handling and use of these instruments which, combined with other measures such as the use of hemoglobin analysis devices at the head of a patient’s bed, can contribute to an improved management of transfusion requirements(AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Postoperative Care/methods , Postoperative Care/nursing , Postoperative Care , Blood Transfusion/nursing , Blood Transfusion, Autologous/nursing , Primary Nursing/trends , Primary Nursing , Manipulation, Orthopedic/nursing , Orthopedic Nursing , Nurse's Role , Equipment Safety/nursing , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards
19.
Actas urol. esp ; 32(9): 916-925, oct. 2008. ilus, tab
Article in Es | IBECS | ID: ibc-67817

ABSTRACT

Objetivos: Llevar a cabo un estudio fármaco económico para conocer el coste medio del diagnóstico y seguimiento de la HBP en España en el ámbito de la atención especializada desde la perspectiva del sistema público de salud, considerando dos fármacos frecuentemente utilizados en el entorno sanitario español, un alfabloqueante (tamsulosina) y el extracto lipido esterólico de Serenoa repens (Permixón(R)).Material y métodos: Se determinaron los costes sanitarios directos del diagnóstico y tratamiento de la HBP para cada presentación clínica según el valor del International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS): leve, moderada y grave. Los datos sobre el consumo y los costes unitarios de los recursos sanitarios se recogieron mediante una encuesta semi-estructurada a expertos clínicos. La eficacia clínica del tratamiento médico fue obtenida del estudio clínico PERMAL, en el que se observó equivalencia terapéutica entre ambos fármacos. Resultados: El coste medio anual de pruebas diagnósticas y visitas médicas de la HBP sintomática según fuese leve, moderada o grave fueron, respectivamente, 124 €, 207€ y 286€ para pacientes tratados en atención especializada. El coste medio anual del tratamiento médico, incluyendo la atención de los efectos adversos fue de 211€ para Permixón(R) y 346 € paratamsulosina. Discusión: El coste de la atención médica de la HBP es proporcional a la intensidad de la sintomatología. El tratamiento farmacológico constituye una parte significativa del coste de la enfermedad. En base al modelo utilizado, el tratamiento con Permixón(R) es sensiblemente más coste-efectivo que el tratamiento con tamsulosina, representando un ahorro medio de 135€ por paciente y año (AU)


Objectives: To develop a pharmaco economic study in order to know the average cost of BPH diagnosis and follow-up in Spain in the Urology Department setting from the perspective of the public health system, considering two frequently used drugs in the Spanish Healthcare environment, an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) and the lipido-sterolic extract of Serenoa repens (Permixon(R)).Material and methods: Direct healthcare costs of BPH diagnosis and treatment were determined for each clinical stage according to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS): mild, moderate and severe. Data on the usage and unit costs of healthcare resources were obtained from a semi-structured interview with clinical experts. The clinical efficacy of the medical treatments was obtained from the PERMAL clinical study, where therapeutic equivalence between the two studied drugs was observed. Results: For patients treated in the Urology Department setting, the average annual cost of diagnostic tests and medical visits related to mild, moderate or severe BPH symptoms were, respectively, € 124, € 207, and € 286. The average annual cost of the drugs, including adverse effects treatment, was € 211 for Permixon(R) and € 346 for tamsulosin. Discussion: Costs of medical care of BPH increases with symptom intensity. Pharmacological treatment makes up a significant part of the disease’s cost. According to the model used, treatment with Permixon(R) is considerably more cost-effective than with tamsulosin, offering average yearly savings of € 135 per patient (AU)


Subject(s)
Economics , Prostatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Hyperplasia/epidemiology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Primary Health Care/methods , Prazosin/adverse effects , Spain/epidemiology , Cost-Benefit Analysis/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Cost-Benefit Analysis/trends , Iatrogenic Disease/epidemiology , Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL