[Profitability analysis of clinical risk management]. / Klinisches Risikomanagement in der Kosten-Nutzen-Betrachtung.

INTRODUCTION: Medical treatment entails many risks. Increasingly, the negative impact of these risks on patients' health is revealed and corresponding cases are reported to hospital insurances. A systematic clinical risk management can reduce risks. This analysis is designed to demonstrate the financial profitability of implementing a clinical risk management. METHODS: The decision analysis of a clinical risk management includes information from published articles and studies, publicly available data from the Federal Statistical Office and expert interviews and was conducted in 2 scenarios. The 2 scenarios result from a maximum and minimum value of preventable adverse events reported in Germany. The planning horizon was a 1-year ­period. The analysis was performed from a hospital's perspective. Subsequently, a threshold-analysis of the reduction of preventable adverse events as an effect of clinical risk management was executed. Furthermore, a static capital budgeting over a 5-year period was added, complemented by a risk analysis. RESULTS: Regarding the given assumptions, the implementation of clinical risk management would save about 53 000 € or 175 000 €, respectively, for an average hospital within the first year. Only if the reduction of preventable adverse events is as low as 5.6 or 2.8%, respectively, will the implementation of clinical risk management produce losses. According to a comprehensive risk simulation this happens in less than one out of 1 million cases. The investment in a clinical risk management, based on a 5-year period and an interest rate of 5%, has an annually pay off of 81 000 € or 211 000 €, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of clinical risk management in a hospital pays off within the first year. In the subsequent years the surplus is even higher due to the elimination of implementation costs.

[An economic comparison between digital luminescence radiography and conventional film processing in intensive care medicine]. / Wirtschaftlichkeitsvergleich zwischen Digitaler Lumineszenzradiographie und konventioneller Filmverarbeitung in der Intensivmedizin.

The costs of a conventional film-screen radiography daylight-system and storage-phosphor computed radiography (Fuji AC-1) are compared. In 1990, 3841 radiologic procedures (mostly portable chest X-rays) were performed in 3474 patients of a surgical intensive care unit. With conventional film-screen radiography 6.8% retakes were necessary for diagnostic or technical reasons. Comparing the fixed and variable costs of both systems conventional film-screen radiography was more economic under the given conditions of the test. It is concluded that computed radiography in intensive care patients has definite advantages in terms of image quality and reproducibility, however, in order to compete successfully in the economic turf CR has to be implemented in a picture archiving and communication system (PACS).