Does cost feedback modify demand for common blood tests in secondary care? A prospective controlled intervention study.

Sarah Lewis, Ben Young, Peter Thurley, Dominick Shaw, Jo Cranwell, Rob Skelly, Tessa Langley, Mark Norwood, Nigel Dc Sturrock, Andrew W Fogarty
{"title":"Does cost feedback modify demand for common blood tests in secondary care? A prospective controlled intervention study.","authors":"Sarah Lewis, Ben Young, Peter Thurley, Dominick Shaw, Jo Cranwell, Rob Skelly, Tessa Langley, Mark Norwood, Nigel Dc Sturrock, Andrew W Fogarty","doi":"10.7861/fhj.2019-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Behavioural insights or 'nudge' theory suggests that non-directional interventions may be used to modify human behaviour. We have tested the hypothesis that the provision of the cost of common blood tests with their results may modify subsequent demand for blood assays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study design was a prospective controlled intervention study. The individual and annual institutional cost of full blood count (FBC), urea and electrolytes (U&E) and liver function test (LFT) blood assays were added to the electronic results system for inpatients at the intervention teaching hospital, but not the control hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 12 months after the intervention was implemented, demand for FBC dropped by 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1-5; p<0.001), U&E by 2% (95% CI 0-4; p=0.054) and there was no change in demand for LFT compared to the control institution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Providing cost feedback to clinicians for commonly used blood tests is a viable intervention that is associated with small reductions in demand for some, but not all blood assays. As this is an easily scalable approach, this has potential to enable efficient healthcare delivery, while also minimising the morbidity experienced by the patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":92635,"journal":{"name":"Future hospital journal","volume":"6 1","pages":"204-208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6798021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future hospital journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2019-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Behavioural insights or 'nudge' theory suggests that non-directional interventions may be used to modify human behaviour. We have tested the hypothesis that the provision of the cost of common blood tests with their results may modify subsequent demand for blood assays.

Methods: The study design was a prospective controlled intervention study. The individual and annual institutional cost of full blood count (FBC), urea and electrolytes (U&E) and liver function test (LFT) blood assays were added to the electronic results system for inpatients at the intervention teaching hospital, but not the control hospital.

Results: In the 12 months after the intervention was implemented, demand for FBC dropped by 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1-5; p<0.001), U&E by 2% (95% CI 0-4; p=0.054) and there was no change in demand for LFT compared to the control institution.

Conclusions: Providing cost feedback to clinicians for commonly used blood tests is a viable intervention that is associated with small reductions in demand for some, but not all blood assays. As this is an easily scalable approach, this has potential to enable efficient healthcare delivery, while also minimising the morbidity experienced by the patient.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成本反馈是否会改变二级护理中对普通血液检测的需求?前瞻性对照干预研究
行为洞察或“助推”理论表明,非定向干预可以用来改变人类行为。我们检验了一种假设,即提供普通血液检查的费用及其结果可能会改变随后对血液分析的需求。方法采用前瞻性对照干预研究。全血细胞计数(FBC)、尿素和电解质(U&E)和肝功能测试(LFT)血液分析的个人和年度机构费用被添加到干预教学医院的住院患者的电子结果系统中,而对照组医院没有。结果在实施干预后的12个月内,对FBC的需求下降了3%(95%置信区间(CI) 1-5;p<0.001), U&E减少2% (95% CI 0-4;p=0.054),与对照机构相比,LFT的需求没有变化。结论:向临床医生提供常用血液检测的费用反馈是一种可行的干预措施,可以小幅减少部分(但不是全部)血液检测的需求。由于这是一种易于扩展的方法,因此有可能实现高效的医疗保健服务,同时也将患者的发病率降至最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shifting the focus: A QI project to improve the management of delirium in patients with hip fracture. Raising concerns in the current NHS climate: a qualitative study exploring junior doctors' attitudes to training and teaching. Freedom to speak up - the role of freedom to speak up guardians and the National Guardian's Office in England. Development of a GMC aligned curriculum for internal medicine including a qualitative study of the acceptability of 'capabilities in practice' as a curriculum model. Flipped learning: Turning medical education upside down.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1