RESUMEN
Objectives: The aim of this study was: (1) to adapt the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method to emergency department (ED) ambulatory care; (2) to estimate the cost of care associated with frequently encountered ambulatory conditions; and (3) to compare costs calculated using estimated time and objectively measured time. Methods: TDABC was applied to a retrospective cohort of patients with upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, unspecified abdominal pain, lower back pain and limb lacerations who visited an ED in Québec City (Canada) during fiscal year 2015-2016. The calculated cost of care was the product of the time required to complete each care procedure and the cost per minute of each human resource or equipment involved. Costing based on durations estimated by care professionals were compared to those based on objective measurements in the field. Results: Overall, 220 care episodes were included and 3080 time measurements of 75 different processes were collected. Differences between costs calculated using estimated and measured times were statistically significant for all conditions except lower back pain and ranged from $4.30 to $55.20 (US) per episode. Differences were larger for conditions requiring more advanced procedures, such as imaging or the attention of ED professionals. Conclusions: The greater the use of advanced procedures or the involvement of ED professionals in the care, the greater is the discrepancy between estimated-time-based and measured-time-based costing. TDABC should be applied using objective measurement of the time per procedure.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Neuroleptics are commonly prescribed drugs to treat acute conditions (e.g., migraines) in the emergency department, but can cause serious adverse effects. Using diphenhydramine to prevent these adverse effects is very common but remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to determine whether prophylactic administration of diphenhydramine reduces the incidence of neuroleptic adverse effects in patients with acute conditions. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating any neuroleptic with diphenhydramine vs. the same neuroleptic with any inactive agent. Primary outcome was incidence of any extrapyramidal adverse effect. Secondary outcomes were akathisia, rescue medication, subjective restlessness, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and sedation. Independent reviewers scanned identified citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using random effect models. RESULTS: Of 1566 identified citations, nine studies (n = 1648 patients) met eligibility criteria. Four studies were specifically designed to compare the incidence of neuroleptic adverse effects with and without co-administration of diphenhydramine. Four studies were at high risk of bias. In primary analysis, diphenhydramine had no effect on the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (7 studies, n = 1393, risk ratio [RR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.31) or akathisia (5 studies, n = 1094; RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.33-1.82) or any of the secondary outcomes. In subgroup analysis, diphenhydramine was associated with a significant decrease in extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (4 studies, n = 705; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.90). Dosage analysis yielded no further information. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with placebo, diphenhydramine was associated with a significant reduction of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Overall quality of evidence is low. Further studies are warranted.
