Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic use of safety-engineered syringes in healthcare facilities in India

Background: Globally, 16 billion injections are administered each year of which 95% are for curative care. India contributes 25–30% of the global injection load. Over 63% of these injections are reportedly unsafe or deemed unnecessary. Objectives: To assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the introduction of safety-engineered syringes (SES) as compared to disposable syringes for therapeutic care in India. Methods: A decision tree was used to compute the volume of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and reuse episodes among healthcare professionals and the patient population. Subsequently, three separate Markov models were used to compute lifetime costs and QALYs for individuals infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three SES were evaluated—reuse prevention syringe (RUP), sharp injury prevention (SIP) syringe, and syringes with features of both RUP and SIP. A lifetime study horizon starting from a base year of 2017 was considered appropriate to cover all costs and consequences comprehensively. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the SES effects in terms of reduction in NSIs and reuse episodes. These were then modelled in terms of reduction in transmission of blood-borne infections, life-years and QALYs gained. Future costs and consequences were discounted at the rate of 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained was computed to assess the cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. Results: The introduction of RUP, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes in India is estimated to incur an incremental cost of Indian National Rupee (INR) 61,028 (US$939), INR 7,768,215 (US$119,511) and INR 196,135 (US$3017) per QALY gained, respectively. A total of 96,296 HBV, 44,082 HCV and 5632 HIV deaths are estimated to be averted due to RUP in 20 years. RUP has an 84% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The RUP syringe can become cost saving at a unit price of INR 1.9. Similarly, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes can be cost-effective at a unit price of less than INR 1.2 and INR 5.9, respectively. Conclusion: RUP syringes are estimated to be cost-effective in the Indian context. SIP and RUP + SIP syringes are not cost-effective at the current unit prices. Efforts should be made to bring down the price of SES to improve its cost-effectiveness

Wat als ….zij-instromers ook een stem een gezicht hadden? Profielfoto’s als richtingaanwijzers in een eigentijdse lerarenopleiding

In het School of Education project van de Associatie KU Leuven – ‘Wat als ... elke instromende student een stem en gezicht had? Profielfoto’s als richtingaanwijzers in een eigentijdse lerarenopleiding.’ – stond volgende vraag centraal: ‘Zijn zij-instromers van een lerarenopleiding al dan niet anders dan generatiestudenten en zo ja, hebben ze dan andere noden en verwachtingen?’ Al snel kwamen we tot de vaststelling dat dit geen eenvoudige vraag was waarop we een eenduidig antwoord zouden kunnen formuleren. We ontwikkelden daarom als basis voor het hele project zowel een raamkader dat een genuanceerd beeld schetst van relevante variabelen, als handvatten voor coaching van deze doelgroep. Op basis van deze inzichten werkten we twee concrete instrumenten uit, namelijk een haalbare intake- en trajectprocedure en een opleidingsonderdeel dat bij de start geïmplementeerd kan worden. In deze publicatie leest u met welke onderzoeksvragen we aan de slag gingen, welke bronnen ons inspireerden en welke methoden we gebruikten om tot het raamkader en de handvatten te komen. Daarnaast vindt u er de nodige verwijzingen en links naar het materiaal, de leeractiviteiten en de instrumenten die we uitwerkten in het kader van dit project en die we ter beschikking stellen van geïnteresseerde (leraren)opleidingen.status: publishe

Studiedag: Wat als ... elke instromende student een stem en gezicht had?

status: publishe

Non-compliance with a nurse\u2019s advice to visit the primary care provider : an exploratory secondary analysis of the TRIAGE-trial

BACKGROUND: During the cluster randomised TRIAGE-trial, a nurse advised 13% of low-risk patients presenting at an emergency department in Belgium to visit the adjacent general practitioner cooperative. Patients had the right to refuse this advice. This exploratory study examines the characteristics of refusers by uncovering the determinants of non-compliance and its impact on costs, as charged on the patient’s invoice. METHODS: Bivariate analyses with logistic regressions and T-tests were used to test the differences in patient characteristics, patient status, timing characteristics, and costs between refusers and non-refusers. A chi-square automatic interaction detection analysis was used to find the predictors of non-compliance. RESULTS: 23.50% of the patients refused the advice to visit the general practitioner cooperative. This proportion was mainly influenced by the nurse on duty (non-compliance rates per nurse ranging from 2.9% to 52.8%) and the patients’ socio-economic status (receiving increased reimbursement versus not OR 1.37, 95%CI: 0.96 to 1.95). Additionally, non-compliance was associated (at the 0.10 significance level) with being male, not living nearby and certain reasons for encounter. Fewer patients refused when the nurse perceived crowding level as quiet relative to normal, and more patients refused during the evening. The mean cost was significantly higher for patients who refused, which was a result of more extensive examination and higher out-of-pocket expenses at the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse providing the advice to visit the general practitioner cooperative has a central role in the likelihood of patients’ refusal. Interventions to reduce non-compliance should aim at improving nurse-patient communication. Special attention may be required when managing patients with a lower socio-economic status. The overall mean cost was higher for refusers, illustrating the importance of compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on registration number NCT03793972 on 04/01/2019

Differences in emergency nurse triage between a simulated setting and the real world, post hoc analysis of a cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVES: In the TRIAGE trial, a cluster randomised trial about diverting emergency department (ED) patients to a general practice cooperative (GPC) using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System, the difference in the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC was striking: 13.3% in the intervention group (patients were encouraged to comply to an ED or GPC assignment, real-world setting) and 24.7% in the control group (the assignment was not communicated, all remained at the ED, simulated setting). In this secondary analysis, we assess the differences in the use of the triage tool between intervention and control group and differences in costs and hospitalisations for patients assigned to the GPC. SETTING: ED of a general hospital and the adjacent GPC. PARTICIPANTS: 8038 patients (6294 intervention and 1744 control). Primary and secondary outcome measures proportion of patients with triage parameters (reason for encounter, discriminator and urgency category) leading to an assignment to the ED, proportion of patients for which the computer-generated GPC assignment was overruled, motivations for choosing certain parameters, costs (invoices) and hospitalisations. RESULTS: An additional 3.1% (p<0.01) of the patients in the intervention group were classified as urgent. Discriminators leading to the ED were registered for an additional 16.2% (p<0.01), mainly because of a perceived need for imaging. Nurses equally chose flow charts leading to the ED (p=0.41) and equally overruled the protocol (p=0.91). In the intervention group, the mean cost for patients assigned to the GPC was €23 (p<0.01) lower and less patients with an assignment to the GPC were hospitalised (1.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Nurses used a triage tool more risk averse when it was used to divert patients to primary care as compared with a theoretical assignment to primary care. Outcomes from a simulated setting should not be extrapolated to real patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03793972