ArticleBMC health services research2023
Using technology to reduce critical deterioration (the DETECT study): a cost analysis of care costs at a tertiary children's hospital in the United Kingdom.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic early warning systems have been used in adults for many years to prevent critical deterioration events (CDEs). However, implementation of similar technologies for monitoring children across the entire hospital poses additional challenges. While the concept of such technologies is promising, their cost-effectiveness is not established for use in children. In this study we investigate the potential for direct cost savings arising from the implementation of the DETECT surveillance system.
methodsData were collected at a tertiary children's hospital in the United Kingdom. We rely on the comparison between patients in the baseline period (March 2018 to February 2019) and patients in the post-intervention period (March 2020 to July 2021). These provided a matched cohort of 19,562 hospital admissions for each group. From these admissions, 324 and 286 CDEs were observed in the baseline and post-intervention period, respectively. Hospital reported costs and Health Related Group (HRG) National Costs were used to estimate overall expenditure associated with CDEs for both groups of patients.
resultsComparing post-intervention with baseline data we found a reduction in the total number of critical care days, driven by an overall reduction in the number of CDEs, however without statistical significance. Using hospital reported costs adjusted for the Covid-19 impact, we estimate a non-significant reduction of total expenditure from £16.0 million to £14.3 million (corresponding to £1.7 million of savings - 11%). Additionally, using HRG average costs, we estimated a non-significant reduction of total expenditure from £8.2 million to £ 7.2 million (corresponding to £1.1 million of savings - 13%). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionUnplanned critical care admissions for children not only impose a substantial burden on patients and families but are also costly for hospitals. Interventions aimed at reducing emergency critical care admissions can be crucial to contribute to the reduction of these episodes' costs. Even though cost reductions were identified in our sample, our results do not support the hypothesis that reducing CDEs using technology leads to a significant reduction on hospital costs.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN61279068, date of registration 07/06/2019, retrospectively registered.
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.