时间驱动的作业成本法在眼科中的应用:范围综述。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Howard Y Zhang, Aden W Smith, Heather E Laferriere, Avni P Finn, Sean T Berkowitz
{"title":"时间驱动的作业成本法在眼科中的应用:范围综述。","authors":"Howard Y Zhang, Aden W Smith, Heather E Laferriere, Avni P Finn, Sean T Berkowitz","doi":"10.1016/j.survophthal.2025.07.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In healthcare economics, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and activity-based costing (ABC) are increasingly utilized, yet their applications within ophthalmology remain undefined and non-standardized. A literature search was performed using the standards of Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR). Studies were subjected to 3 rounds of screening, with 3 separate data extractions to summarize study characteristics, TDABC-specific parameters, and secondary or sensitivity analysis. Out of the 27 included articles, 11 utilized ABC, 12 utilized TDABC, and 4 were micro-costing studies with activity-based elements. The 2 most common ophthalmologic processes being studied were surgery only (41 %), and clinical services only (19 %). Process flow was delineated through direct observation and interviews (22 %), a mix of direct observation and electronic health record (EHR) (15 %), EHR only (11 %), direct observation only (11 %), interviews only (3.7 %) and often unspecified (37.2 %). Estimated average capacity cost rates found in TDABC articles for operating room (OR) spaces, non-OR spaces, surgeons, anesthesia, registered nurses, and other staff were reported. We observed an increase in publications utilizing activity-based costing, particularly the use of TDABC over the preceding 2 decades, with heterogenous methodologies. Standardized approaches with more detailed reporting of data sources and additional analyses are needed to increase the accessibility of TDABC in ophthalmology.</p>","PeriodicalId":22102,"journal":{"name":"Survey of ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of time-driven activity-based costing in ophthalmology: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Howard Y Zhang, Aden W Smith, Heather E Laferriere, Avni P Finn, Sean T Berkowitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.survophthal.2025.07.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In healthcare economics, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and activity-based costing (ABC) are increasingly utilized, yet their applications within ophthalmology remain undefined and non-standardized. A literature search was performed using the standards of Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR). Studies were subjected to 3 rounds of screening, with 3 separate data extractions to summarize study characteristics, TDABC-specific parameters, and secondary or sensitivity analysis. Out of the 27 included articles, 11 utilized ABC, 12 utilized TDABC, and 4 were micro-costing studies with activity-based elements. The 2 most common ophthalmologic processes being studied were surgery only (41 %), and clinical services only (19 %). Process flow was delineated through direct observation and interviews (22 %), a mix of direct observation and electronic health record (EHR) (15 %), EHR only (11 %), direct observation only (11 %), interviews only (3.7 %) and often unspecified (37.2 %). Estimated average capacity cost rates found in TDABC articles for operating room (OR) spaces, non-OR spaces, surgeons, anesthesia, registered nurses, and other staff were reported. We observed an increase in publications utilizing activity-based costing, particularly the use of TDABC over the preceding 2 decades, with heterogenous methodologies. Standardized approaches with more detailed reporting of data sources and additional analyses are needed to increase the accessibility of TDABC in ophthalmology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey of ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey of ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2025.07.007\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2025.07.007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在医疗保健经济学中,时间驱动的作业成本法(TDABC)和作业成本法(ABC)越来越多地被使用,但它们在眼科中的应用仍然不明确和不标准化。使用系统评价首选报告项目和范围评价扩展元分析标准(prisa - scr)进行文献检索。研究进行3轮筛选,分别进行3次数据提取,总结研究特征、tdbc特异性参数,并进行二次或敏感性分析。在纳入的27篇文章中,11篇使用ABC, 12篇使用TDABC, 4篇是基于作业要素的微观成本研究。研究中最常见的两种眼科手术是仅手术(41%)和仅临床服务(19%)。流程流程通过直接观察和访谈(22%)、直接观察和电子健康记录(her)的混合(15%)、仅电子病历(11%)、仅直接观察(11%)、仅访谈(3.7%)和经常未指定(37.2%)来描述。报告了TDABC文章中发现的手术室、非手术室、外科医生、麻醉师、注册护士和其他工作人员的估计平均容量成本率(CCR)。我们观察到,在过去的二十年中,利用作业成本法的出版物有所增加,特别是使用TDABC,方法各异。标准化的方法需要更详细的数据来源报告和额外的分析,以增加TDABC在眼科的可及性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The use of time-driven activity-based costing in ophthalmology: A scoping review.

In healthcare economics, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and activity-based costing (ABC) are increasingly utilized, yet their applications within ophthalmology remain undefined and non-standardized. A literature search was performed using the standards of Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR). Studies were subjected to 3 rounds of screening, with 3 separate data extractions to summarize study characteristics, TDABC-specific parameters, and secondary or sensitivity analysis. Out of the 27 included articles, 11 utilized ABC, 12 utilized TDABC, and 4 were micro-costing studies with activity-based elements. The 2 most common ophthalmologic processes being studied were surgery only (41 %), and clinical services only (19 %). Process flow was delineated through direct observation and interviews (22 %), a mix of direct observation and electronic health record (EHR) (15 %), EHR only (11 %), direct observation only (11 %), interviews only (3.7 %) and often unspecified (37.2 %). Estimated average capacity cost rates found in TDABC articles for operating room (OR) spaces, non-OR spaces, surgeons, anesthesia, registered nurses, and other staff were reported. We observed an increase in publications utilizing activity-based costing, particularly the use of TDABC over the preceding 2 decades, with heterogenous methodologies. Standardized approaches with more detailed reporting of data sources and additional analyses are needed to increase the accessibility of TDABC in ophthalmology.

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
Survey of ophthalmology
Survey of ophthalmology 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
138
审稿时长
14.8 weeks
期刊介绍: Survey of Ophthalmology is a clinically oriented review journal designed to keep ophthalmologists up to date. Comprehensive major review articles, written by experts and stringently refereed, integrate the literature on subjects selected for their clinical importance. Survey also includes feature articles, section reviews, book reviews, and abstracts.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信