内窥镜与开放式腕管松解术的直接可变成本比较:基于时间驱动的活动成本计算分析》。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-25 DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00872
Terence L Thomas, Graham S Goh, Pedro K Beredjiklian
{"title":"内窥镜与开放式腕管松解术的直接可变成本比较:基于时间驱动的活动成本计算分析》。","authors":"Terence L Thomas, Graham S Goh, Pedro K Beredjiklian","doi":"10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To improve the delivery of value-based health care, a deeper understanding of the cost drivers in hand surgery is warranted. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more accurate estimation of resource utilization compared with top-down accounting methods. This study used TDABC to compare the facility costs of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified 845 consecutive, unilateral carpal tunnel release (516 open, 329 endoscopic) surgeries performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital between 2015 and 2021. Itemized facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and itemized costs were compared between OCTR and ECTR. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent effect of endoscopic surgery on true facility costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total facility costs were $352 higher in ECTR compared with OCTR ($882 versus $530). ECTR cases had higher personnel costs ($499 versus $420), likely because of longer surgical time (15 versus 11 minutes) and total operating room time (35 versus 27 minutes). ECTR cases also had higher supply costs ($383 versus $110). Controlling for demographics and comorbidities, ECTR was associated with an increase in personnel costs of $35.74 (95% CI, $26.32 to $45.15), supply costs of $230.28 (95% CI, $205.17 to $255.39), and total facility costs of $265.99 (95% CI, $237.01 to $294.97) per case.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Using TDABC, ECTR was 66% more costly to the facility compared with OCTR. To reduce the costs related to endoscopic surgery, efforts to decrease surgical time and negotiate lower ECTR-specific supply costs are warranted.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Economic and Decision Analysis Level II.</p>","PeriodicalId":51098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct Variable Cost Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Terence L Thomas, Graham S Goh, Pedro K Beredjiklian\",\"doi\":\"10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To improve the delivery of value-based health care, a deeper understanding of the cost drivers in hand surgery is warranted. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more accurate estimation of resource utilization compared with top-down accounting methods. This study used TDABC to compare the facility costs of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified 845 consecutive, unilateral carpal tunnel release (516 open, 329 endoscopic) surgeries performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital between 2015 and 2021. Itemized facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and itemized costs were compared between OCTR and ECTR. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent effect of endoscopic surgery on true facility costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total facility costs were $352 higher in ECTR compared with OCTR ($882 versus $530). ECTR cases had higher personnel costs ($499 versus $420), likely because of longer surgical time (15 versus 11 minutes) and total operating room time (35 versus 27 minutes). ECTR cases also had higher supply costs ($383 versus $110). Controlling for demographics and comorbidities, ECTR was associated with an increase in personnel costs of $35.74 (95% CI, $26.32 to $45.15), supply costs of $230.28 (95% CI, $205.17 to $255.39), and total facility costs of $265.99 (95% CI, $237.01 to $294.97) per case.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Using TDABC, ECTR was 66% more costly to the facility compared with OCTR. To reduce the costs related to endoscopic surgery, efforts to decrease surgical time and negotiate lower ECTR-specific supply costs are warranted.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Economic and Decision Analysis Level II.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00872\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00872","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:为了改善以价值为基础的医疗服务,有必要深入了解手外科的成本驱动因素。与自上而下的核算方法相比,时间驱动活动成本法(TDABC)能更准确地估算资源利用率。本研究使用 TDABC 比较了开放式腕管松解术(OCTR)和内窥镜腕管松解术(ECTR)的设施成本:我们确定了一家骨科专科医院在 2015 年至 2021 年间连续进行的 845 例单侧腕管松解术(516 例开放式,329 例内窥镜)。使用 TDABC 算法计算了逐项设施成本。比较了 OCTR 和 ECTR 的患者人口统计学特征、合并症、手术特征和逐项成本。多变量回归用于确定内窥镜手术对真实设施成本的独立影响:结果:与 OCTR 相比,ECTR 的设施总成本高出 352 美元(882 美元对 530 美元)。ECTR 病例的人员成本较高(499 美元对 420 美元),这可能是因为手术时间(15 分钟对 11 分钟)和手术室总时间(35 分钟对 27 分钟)较长。ECTR病例的供应成本也更高(383美元对110美元)。在控制人口统计学和并发症的情况下,ECTR与每个病例的人员成本增加35.74美元(95% CI,26.32美元至45.15美元)、供应成本增加230.28美元(95% CI,205.17美元至255.39美元)以及设施总成本增加265.99美元(95% CI,237.01美元至294.97美元)相关:讨论:与 OCTR 相比,使用 TDABC 进行 ECTR 的医疗机构成本要高出 66%。为降低内窥镜手术的相关成本,应努力缩短手术时间并协商降低ECTR的特定供应成本:经济与决策分析 II 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Direct Variable Cost Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

Introduction: To improve the delivery of value-based health care, a deeper understanding of the cost drivers in hand surgery is warranted. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more accurate estimation of resource utilization compared with top-down accounting methods. This study used TDABC to compare the facility costs of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).

Methods: We identified 845 consecutive, unilateral carpal tunnel release (516 open, 329 endoscopic) surgeries performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital between 2015 and 2021. Itemized facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and itemized costs were compared between OCTR and ECTR. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent effect of endoscopic surgery on true facility costs.

Results: Total facility costs were $352 higher in ECTR compared with OCTR ($882 versus $530). ECTR cases had higher personnel costs ($499 versus $420), likely because of longer surgical time (15 versus 11 minutes) and total operating room time (35 versus 27 minutes). ECTR cases also had higher supply costs ($383 versus $110). Controlling for demographics and comorbidities, ECTR was associated with an increase in personnel costs of $35.74 (95% CI, $26.32 to $45.15), supply costs of $230.28 (95% CI, $205.17 to $255.39), and total facility costs of $265.99 (95% CI, $237.01 to $294.97) per case.

Discussion: Using TDABC, ECTR was 66% more costly to the facility compared with OCTR. To reduce the costs related to endoscopic surgery, efforts to decrease surgical time and negotiate lower ECTR-specific supply costs are warranted.

Level of evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
529
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons was established in the fall of 1993 by the Academy in response to its membership’s demand for a clinical review journal. Two issues were published the first year, followed by six issues yearly from 1994 through 2004. In September 2005, JAAOS began publishing monthly issues. Each issue includes richly illustrated peer-reviewed articles focused on clinical diagnosis and management. Special features in each issue provide commentary on developments in pharmacotherapeutics, materials and techniques, and computer applications.
期刊最新文献
Understanding the Influence of Single Payer Health Insurance on Socioeconomic Disparities in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Utilization: A Transnational Analysis. Patellofemoral Instability Part II: Surgical Treatment. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline Summary Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip. Femoral Head Fractures: Evaluation, Management, and Outcomes. Trends in Preoperative Outcome Measures From 2013 to 2021 in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty.
×
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