Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2020
Return on investment of the diabetes foot care clinical pathway implementation in Alberta, Canada.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thanh Nguyen X, Dmytruk Kathy, O'Connell Petra, Rogers Edwin, Fillier Denise, MacRae Jennifer M, Thomas Chandra, Rennie Chantal, Eitzenberger Christiane, Newman Chryslyn, Match Brian, Thompson Charlotte, Nhan Julie, Wasylak Tracy
Аннотация
AIMS: Based on best practices, the diabetes foot care clinical pathway (DFCCP) has been developed and implemented in several clinics in Alberta, Canada. We performed a return on investment (ROI) analysis of this implementation.
METHODS: We used a cohort design comparing both cost and return (in terms of reduced health services utilization, HSU) between diabetes patients who were exposed and who were unexposed, to the intervention. We used a difference-in-difference approach and a propensity-score-matching technique to minimize biases due to differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between two cohorts. We used a 1-year time-horizon and converted all costs/savings to 2019 Canadian dollars (1 CA$ ~= 0.75 US$).
RESULTS: The intervention helped avoid $3500 in costs of HSU per patient-year. Subtracting the intervention cost of $500, the net benefit of intervention was $3000 (ranged $2400-$3700) per patient-year. The ROI ratio was estimated at 7.4 (ranged 6.1 to 8.8) meaning that every invested $1 returned $7.4 (ranged $6.1-$8.8) for the health system. The probability of intervention being cost-saving ranged from 99.5-100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of DFCCP in Alberta is cost-saving. A continuation of the pathway implementation at studied clinics and a spread to other clinics are recommended.
METHODS: We used a cohort design comparing both cost and return (in terms of reduced health services utilization, HSU) between diabetes patients who were exposed and who were unexposed, to the intervention. We used a difference-in-difference approach and a propensity-score-matching technique to minimize biases due to differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between two cohorts. We used a 1-year time-horizon and converted all costs/savings to 2019 Canadian dollars (1 CA$ ~= 0.75 US$).
RESULTS: The intervention helped avoid $3500 in costs of HSU per patient-year. Subtracting the intervention cost of $500, the net benefit of intervention was $3000 (ranged $2400-$3700) per patient-year. The ROI ratio was estimated at 7.4 (ranged 6.1 to 8.8) meaning that every invested $1 returned $7.4 (ranged $6.1-$8.8) for the health system. The probability of intervention being cost-saving ranged from 99.5-100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of DFCCP in Alberta is cost-saving. A continuation of the pathway implementation at studied clinics and a spread to other clinics are recommended.