Sarah Lewis, Ben Young, Peter Thurley, Dominick Shaw, Jo Cranwell, Rob Skelly, Tessa Langley, Mark Norwood, Nigel Dc Sturrock, Andrew W Fogarty
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Does cost feedback modify demand for common blood tests in secondary care? A prospective controlled intervention study.
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.