Browsing by Subject "Cost analysis"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Cost Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate with and without Moses
    (American Urological Association, 2021) Lee, Matthew S.; Assmus, Mark; Agarwal, Deepak; Large, Tim; Krambeck, Amy; Urology, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a size-independent treatment option for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. HoLEP has been shown to have excellent improvements in prostate symptom scores and maximum flow rates that have been durable for 2 decades. However, the steep learning curve associated with HoLEP has prevented its widespread adoption. New advancements in lasers, specifically the Moses™ pulse-modulation technology, have resulted in improvements in hemostasis and achieving same-day discharges and catheter removals. We aimed to perform a cost-comparison to analyze if Moses-augmented HoLEP (m-HoLEP) resulted in cost-savings. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of a single expert surgeon's experience from May 2018 to November 2020, comparing m-HoLEP with HoLEP. Perioperative and postoperative variables were abstracted from the medical record. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using SAS® 9.4. Two-sided significance was set at p <0.05. Results: A total of 312 men underwent HoLEP during the study period (192 in m-HoLEP group and 120 in HoLEP group). The m-HoLEP group had more same-day discharges (p <0.001) and emergency department visits (6.3% vs 1.7%, p=0.0071). m-HoLEP resulted in hospital cost savings of $840 for the initial surgical episode (p=0.0297). When factoring in emergency department visits/readmissions, the cost savings decreased to $747 per case (p=0.0574). Conclusions: m-HoLEP was associated with same-day discharge and hospital cost savings of $840 for the initial surgical episode. Further study in other institutions with surgeons of varying experience levels will need to be performed to see if these findings can be replicated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A targeted systematic review of cost analyses for implementation of simulation-based education in healthcare
    (Sage, 2020-03-19) Hippe, Daniel S.; Umoren, Rachel A.; McGee, Alex; Bucher, Sherri L.; Bresnahan, Brian W.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the use of simulation-based education for training healthcare providers in technical and non-technical skills. Simulation education and research programs have mostly focused on the impact on clinical knowledge and improvement of technical skills rather than on cost. To study and characterize existing evidence to inform multi-stakeholder investment decisions, we performed a systematic review of the literature on costs in simulation-based education in medicine in general and in neonatal resuscitation as a particular focus. We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed database using two targeted queries. The first searched for cost analyses of healthcare simulation-based education more broadly, and the second was more narrowly focused on cost analyses of neonatal resuscitation training. The more general query identified 47 qualified articles. The most common specialties for education interventions were surgery (51%); obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics (11%); medicine, nursing, or medical school (11%); and urology (9%), accounting for over 80% of articles. The neonatal resuscitation query identified five qualified articles. The two queries identified seven large-scale training implementation studies, one in the United States and six in low-income countries. There were two articles each from Tanzania and India and one article each from Zambia and Ghana. Methods, definitions, and reported estimates varied across articles, implying interpretation, comparison, and generalization of program effects are challenging. More work is needed to understand the costs, processes, and outcomes likely to make simulation-based education programs cost-effective and scalable. To optimize return on investments in training, assessing resource requirements, associated costs, and subsequent outcomes can inform stakeholders about the potential sustainability of SBE programs. Healthcare stakeholders and decision makers will benefit from more transparent, consistent, rigorous, and explicit assessments of simulation-based education program development and implementation costs in low- and high-income countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes following integration of a stiff shaft glidewire into percutaneous nephrolithotripsy
    (Sage, 2021-08-22) Valadon, Crystal; Abedali, Zain A.; Nottingham, Charles U.; Large, Tim; Krambeck, Amy E.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Aims: To analyze the cost effectiveness of integrating a stiff shaft glidewire (SSGW) in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) relative to standard technique (ST). This is prudent because healthcare providers are experiencing increased pressure to improve procedure-related cost containment. Methods: ST for PCNL at our institution involves a hydrophilic glidewire during initial percutaneous access and then two new stiff shaft wires. The SSGW is a hydrophilic wire used for initial access and the remainder of the procedure. We collected operating room (OR) costs for all primary, unilateral PCNL cases over a 5-month period during which ST for PCNL was used at a single institution with a single surgeon and compared with a 6-month period during which a SSGW was used. Mean costs for each period were then compared along with stone-free rates and complications. Results: We included 17 total cases in the ST group and 22 in the SSGW group. The average operating room supply cost for the ST group was $1937.32 and $1559.39 in the SSGW group. The net difference of $377.93 represents a nearly 20% decrease in cost. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.031). There was no difference in postoperative stone-free rates (82.4% versus 86.4%, p = 1.0, respectively) or complications (23.5% versus 13.6%, p = 0.677, respectively) between ST and SSGW groups. Conclusion: Transitioning to a SSGW has reduced OR supply cost by reducing the number of supplies required. The change in wire did not affect stone-free rates or complications.