ABSTRACT
"'Hypos' can strike twice" (HS2) is a pragmatic, leaflet-based referral intervention designed for administration by clinicians of the emergency medical services (EMS) to people they have attended and successfully treated for hypoglycaemia. Its main purpose is to encourage the recipient to engage with their general practitioner or diabetic nurse in order that improvements in medical management of their diabetes may be made, thereby reducing their risk of recurrent hypoglycaemia. Herein we build a de novo economic model for purposes of incremental analyses to compare, in 2018-19 prices, HS2 against standard care for recurrent hypoglycaemia in the fortnight following the initial attack from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). We found that per patient NHS costs incurred by people receiving the HS2 intervention over the fortnight following an initial hypoglycaemia average £49.79, and under standard care costs average £40.50. Target patient benefit assessed over that same period finds the probability of no recurrence of hypoglycaemia averaging 42.4% under HS2 and 39.4% under standard care, a 7.6% reduction in relative risk. We find that implementing HS2 will cost the NHS an additional £309.36 per episode of recurrent hypoglycaemia avoided. Contrary to the favourable support offered in Botan et al., we conclude that in its current form the HS2 intervention is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources when compared to standard NHS care in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia recurring within a fortnight of an initial attack that was resolved at-scene by EMS ambulance clinicians.
Subject(s)
Ambulances , Hypoglycemia , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , State Medicine , Hypoglycemia/prevention & control , Referral and ConsultationABSTRACT
AIMS: We aimed to investigate the effect of an intervention in which ambulance personnel provided advice supported by a booklet-'Hypos can strike twice'-issued following a hypoglycaemic event to prevent future ambulance attendances. METHODS: We used a non-randomised stepped wedge-controlled design. The intervention was introduced at different times (steps) in different areas (clusters) of operation within East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS). During the first step (T0), no clusters were exposed to the intervention, and during the last step (T3), all clusters were exposed. Data were analysed using a general linear mixed model (GLMM) and an interrupted-time series analysis (ITSA). RESULTS: The study included 4825 patients (mean age 65.42 years, SD 19.42; 2,166 females) experiencing hypoglycaemic events attended by EMAS. GLMM indicated a reduction in the number of unsuccessful attendances (i.e., attendance followed by a repeat attendance) in the final step of the intervention when compared to the first (odds ratio OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.76, p = 0.001). ITSA indicated a significant decrease in repeat ambulance attendances for hypoglycaemia-relative to the pre-intervention trend (p = 0.008). Furthermore, the hypoglycaemia care bundle was delivered in 66% of attendances during the intervention period, demonstrating a significant level of practice change (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The 'Hypos can strike twice' intervention had a positive effect on reducing numbers of repeat attendances for hypoglycaemia and in achieving the care bundle. The study supports the use of information booklets by ambulance clinicians to prevent future attendances for recurrent hypoglycaemic events.