Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29247110›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Prospective economic evaluation of an electronic discharge communication tool: analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Laura K Sevick, Maria-Jose Santana, William A Ghali, Fiona Clement

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01402609 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy of an Electronic Discharge Communication Tool for Preventing Death or Hospital Readmission), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01402609 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy of an Electronic Discharge Communication Tool for Preventing Death or Hospital Readmission

TypeinterventionalSponsorWard of the 21st CenturyRan2011 to 2016Enrolled1,399ConditionsOther Diagnoses, Comorbidities, and ComplicationsArmselectronic discharge communication tool, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura K SevickDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Maria-Jose SantanaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
William A GhaliDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Fiona ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo complete an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the use of an electronic discharge communication tool (eDCT) compared with usual care.

settingPatients being discharged from a single tertiary care centre's internal medicine Medical Teaching Units.

participantsBetween January 2012 and December 2013, 1399 patients were randomised to a discharge mechanism. Forty-five patients were excluded from the economic evaluation as they did not have data for the index hospitalisation cost; 1354 patients contributed to the economic evaluation.

interventioneDCT generated at discharge containing structured content on reason for admission, details of the hospital stay, treatments received and follow-up care required. The control group was discharged via traditional dictation methods. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included the cost per death avoided and the cost per readmission avoided.

resultsThe average transcription cost was $C22.28 per patient, whereas the estimated cost of the eDCT was $C13.33 per patient. The cost per QALY gained was $C239 933 in the eDCT arm compared with usual care due to the very small gains in effectiveness and approximately $C800difference in resource utilisation costs. The bootstrap analyses resulted in eDCT being more effective and more costly in 29.2% of samples, less costly and more effective in 29.2% of samples, less effective and more costly in 23.9% of samples and finally, less costly and less effective in 17.7% of samples.

conclusionsThe eDCT reduced per patient costs of the generation of discharge summaries. The bootstrap estimates demonstrate considerable uncertainty supporting the finding of neutrality reported in the clinical component of the RCT. The immediate transcription cost savings and previously documented provider and patient satisfaction may increase the impetus for organisations to invest in such systems, provided they have a foundation of eHealth infrastructure and readiness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01402609.

Indexed as

CommunicationCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansLength of StayMalePatient DischargeProspective StudiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTertiary Care Centershealth economicshealth policyorganisational developmentorganisation of health servicesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID29247110
PMCPMC5735407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.