ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many patients visit the accident and emergency department (AED) on their own initiative, although their medical problem can be adequately treated by a general practitioner (GP). Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of addition of a GP to the AED (new care method) in comparison with usual care (usual care method). METHODS: This study followed a before/after design. Patients attending the AED without a referral on weekdays from 10:00 to 17:00 were invited to participate. Main outcome measures were process time, patient satisfaction and number of correct diagnoses. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around differences in costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were presented. RESULTS: Addition of a GP to the AED resulted in significantly lower process time, significantly higher patient satisfaction and no statistically significant difference in the number of correct diagnoses. Total costs per patient were 217 in the new care period and 288 in the usual care period (mean difference -71, 95% CI -121 to -23). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the new care method was dominant (more effective, less expensive) in comparison with the usual care method for process time and patient satisfaction. The new care method was considered cost-effective in comparison with the usual care method for ceiling ratios between 0 and 1363 for the number of correct diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The new care method consisting of addition of a GP to the AED is cost-effective in comparison with usual care for all outcome parameters measured.
Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital/economics , Family Practice/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Family Practice/organization & administration , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Health Services Needs and Demand/organization & administration , Hospital Costs , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Patient Satisfaction , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many self-attending patients make inappropriate use of accident and emergency departments. AIM: To determine whether a new care method consisting of the involvement of a GP during the day with the staff of the accident and emergency department of an academic city hospital and application of the Nederlands Triage System by a practice nurse is more effective than usual care. DESIGN: Before and after intervention design. SETTING: Accident and emergency department in the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. METHOD: Participants were patients (n = 1527) attending the accident and emergency department without a referral, on weekdays from 10.00-17.00 hours, from 1 November 2006 to 30 April 2007. The intervention consisted of a new care method that combined the involvement of a GP in the accident and emergency department and allocation of patients by triage to either the GP or the accident and emergency department physician. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction, number and type of additional examinations, quality of diagnosis, process time, and treatment time. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction with the treatment increased significantly. Compared to the usual care method, this new care method resulted in a 13% decrease in additional examinations. The percentage of incorrect diagnoses (1 %), as a measure of quality of care, was similar with the two methods. The mean process time decreased from 93 to 69 minutes (P<0.001). The mean treatment time decreased from 60 to 35 minutes (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The new care method resulted in greater patient satisfaction and maintained the quality of care, with fewer additional examinations. It reduced both the process time and the treatment time.
