Medical device standardisation for diabetes: a 6–year evaluation of cost savings

Jim Swift, Selma Abed, J. Hall, Jimmy Cheung, Keith Pearson, Chris Baker
{"title":"Medical device standardisation for diabetes: a 6–year evaluation of cost savings","authors":"Jim Swift, Selma Abed, J. Hall, Jimmy Cheung, Keith Pearson, Chris Baker","doi":"10.12968/bjhc.2021.0160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a follow-up study to research published in 2017, which evaluated the effectiveness of an audit and change programme aiming to improve the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose prescribing in two Greater Manchester clinical commissioning groups. The present study aimed to assess the longevity of the changes achieved over a 6-year period, comparing clinical commissioning groups that adopted the change programme in 2015 with those that adopted it later or not at all in Greater Manchester. Prescribing data for Greater Manchester were extracted from a publicly available database and categorised into three groups: clinical commissioning groups that adopted a medicines optimisation programme in 2015, those that adopted it later and those that did not adopt the programme. The savings of each clinical commissioning group were balanced using diabetes prevalence data and compared against an average clinical commissioning group in England. Data were compared using Kruskal Wallis tests, post-hoc Dunn's tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and linear regression. Clinical commissioning groups that implemented the change programme in 2015 had greater savings than those that did not implement the change programme (P=0.0036). The former group also saw greater percentage reductions in mean self-monitoring of blood glucose unit costs than the NHS England average (29.6% vs 20.3%; P<0.001) between the fourth quarter of 2014 and the fourth quarter of 2020. A structured change programme that aims to standardise prescribing can lead to substantial cost savings over a time period of 6 years.","PeriodicalId":35342,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Care Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Care Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2021.0160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is a follow-up study to research published in 2017, which evaluated the effectiveness of an audit and change programme aiming to improve the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose prescribing in two Greater Manchester clinical commissioning groups. The present study aimed to assess the longevity of the changes achieved over a 6-year period, comparing clinical commissioning groups that adopted the change programme in 2015 with those that adopted it later or not at all in Greater Manchester. Prescribing data for Greater Manchester were extracted from a publicly available database and categorised into three groups: clinical commissioning groups that adopted a medicines optimisation programme in 2015, those that adopted it later and those that did not adopt the programme. The savings of each clinical commissioning group were balanced using diabetes prevalence data and compared against an average clinical commissioning group in England. Data were compared using Kruskal Wallis tests, post-hoc Dunn's tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and linear regression. Clinical commissioning groups that implemented the change programme in 2015 had greater savings than those that did not implement the change programme (P=0.0036). The former group also saw greater percentage reductions in mean self-monitoring of blood glucose unit costs than the NHS England average (29.6% vs 20.3%; P<0.001) between the fourth quarter of 2014 and the fourth quarter of 2020. A structured change programme that aims to standardise prescribing can lead to substantial cost savings over a time period of 6 years.
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
糖尿病医疗器械标准化:6年成本节约评估
这是对2017年发表的一项研究的后续研究,该研究评估了一项审计和变革计划的有效性,该计划旨在提高两个大曼彻斯特临床委托小组自我监测血糖处方的成本效益。本研究旨在评估在6年期间实现的变化的寿命,比较2015年采用变化计划的临床委托组与后来或根本没有采用该计划的临床委托组在大曼彻斯特。大曼彻斯特的处方数据是从一个公开的数据库中提取的,并分为三组:在2015年采用药物优化计划的临床调试组,后来采用该计划的临床调试组和未采用该计划的临床调试组。使用糖尿病患病率数据平衡每个临床调试组的节省,并与英国的平均临床调试组进行比较。采用Kruskal Wallis检验、post-hoc Dunn检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和线性回归对数据进行比较。2015年实施变更方案的临床调试组比未实施变更方案的临床调试组节省的费用更多(P=0.0036)。前一组的平均自我监测血糖单位成本也比英国国民保健服务的平均水平下降了更大的百分比(29.6%比20.3%;P<0.001),介于2014年第四季度和2020年第四季度之间。旨在规范处方的结构化变革计划可在6年的时间内节省大量费用。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: British Journal of Healthcare Management (BJHCM) is the independent monthly journal which is essential reading for all health service managers, policymakers, influencers and commentators. Launched in 1995, BJHCM mixes peer-reviewed management articles with interviews, analysis and comment to bring you a sharp, topical and valuable insight into what"s happening in and around the NHS. To reflect the way that the NHS is changing, the journal has recently received a major face-lift and several new features now appear alongside BJHCM"s excellent state-of-the-art review articles and celebrated columnists.
期刊最新文献
In memory of monica duncan, 1950–2023 Does switching from tobacco to reduced-risk products free up hospital resources? Value-based pricing of add-on life-extending medicines based on economic evaluation Sociodemographic determinants of structural empowerment and organisational commitment among critical care nurses in Saudi Arabia: a comparative cross-sectional study One-fifth of adults in England will have a major illness by 2040: a reflection for healthcare managers
×
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