ArticleBMJ open2015
A cost-benefit analysis of twice-daily consultant ward rounds and clinical input on investigation and pharmacy costs in a major teaching hospital in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Financial impact of medication reviews by clinical pharmacists to reduce in-hospital adverse drug events: a return-on-investment analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Impact of restructuring an inpatient pediatric service on length of stay and patient flow.Saudi medical journal · 2023Article
- Introducing a structured daily multidisciplinary board round to safely enhance surgical ward patient flow in the bed shortage era: a quality improvement research report.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMisuse of investigations, medications and hospital beds is costing the National Health Service (NHS) billions of pounds with little evidence that approaches centred on reducing overuse are sustainable. Our previous study demonstrated that twice-daily consultant ward rounds reduce inpatient length of stay and suggested a reduction in overuse of investigations and medications. This study aims to assess the impact of daily consultant ward rounds on the use of investigations and medications and estimate the potential cost benefit. SETTINGS: The study was performed on two medical wards in a major city university teaching hospital in Liverpool, UK, receiving acute admissions from medical assessment and emergency departments. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionThe total number of patients admitted, investigations performed and pharmacy costs incurred were collected for 2 years before and following a change in the working practice of consultants from twice-weekly to twice-daily consultant ward rounds on the two medical wards. OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed a cost-benefit analysis to assess the net amount of money saved by reducing inappropriate investigations and pharmacy drug use following the intervention.
resultsDespite a 70% increase in patient throughput (p<0.01) the investigations and pharmacy, costs per patient reduced by 50% over a 12-month period (p<0.01) and were sustained for the next 12 months. The reduction in investigations and medication use did not have any effect on the readmission or mortality rate (p=NS), whereas, the length of stay was almost halved (p<0.01). Daily senior clinician input resulted in a net cost saving of £336,528 per year following the intervention.
conclusionsDaily consultant input has a significant impact on reducing the inappropriate use of investigations and pharmacy costs saving the NHS more than £650K on the two wards over a 2-year period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.