Cost-effectiveness analysis of cast versus splint in children with acceptably angulated wrist fractures.

OBJECTIVES: In a practice setting where casting is considered the standard of care, the aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of wrist splints compared with routine casting in children with acceptably angulated distal radius greenstick or transverse fractures. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). One hundred children with acceptably angulated distal radius greenstick or transverse fractures received either a wrist splint or cast. Information on health care provider and patient and family resource use as well as productivity cost was collected. Resource use was costed using unit costs from local administrative data sources and expense diaries. Effectiveness was assessed at 6 weeks using the performance version of the Activities Scale for Kids (ASKp) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness analysis related differential costs to differential ASKp scores. RESULTS: Mean total cost was $877.58 in the splint group and $950.35 in the cast group, with a mean difference of $-72.76 (standard error [SE] 45.88). Mean total healthcare cost was $670.66 in the splint group and $768.22 in the cast group, with a mean difference of $-97.56 (SE 9.24). Mean (SE) ASKp was 92.8 in the splint group and 91.4 in the cast group, with a mean difference of 1.439 (SE 1.585). Therefore, splint management was more effective and cheaper. After accounting for uncertainty, the probability of splint being cost-effective compared with cast was 94 percent for a willingness-to-pay threshold value of $0 for one-unit gain in ASKp score and exceeded 82 percent for all threshold values. CONCLUSIONS: In this RCT, splint management was cost-effective compared with casting in children with acceptably angulated distal radius greenstick or transverse fractures. This study challenges the existing standard of care for children with this type of fracture and provides justification on clinical and economic grounds for a change in routine practice.

Managing multiple projects: a literature review of setting priorities and a pilot survey of healthcare researchers in an academic setting.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and then assess with a pilot study the use of published best practice recommendations for priority setting during management of multiple healthcare research projects, in a resource-constrained environment. METHODS: Medical, economic, business, and operations literature was reviewed to summarize and develop a survey to assess best practices for managing multiple projects. Fifteen senior healthcare research project managers, directors, and faculty at an urban academic institution were surveyed to determine most commonly used priority rules, ranking of rules, characteristics of their projects, and availability of resources. Survey results were compared to literature recommendations to determine use of best practices. RESULTS: Seven priority-setting rules were identified for managing multiple projects. Recommendations on assigning priorities by project characteristics are presented. In the pilot study, a large majority of survey respondents follow best practice recommendations identified in the research literature. However, priority rules such as Most Total Successors (MTS) and Resource Scheduling Method (RSM) were used "very often" by half of the respondents when better performing priority rules were available. CONCLUSIONS: Through experience, project managers learn to manage multiple projects under resource constraints. Best practice literature can assist project managers in priority setting by recommending the most appropriate priority given resource constraints and project characteristics. There is room for improvement in managing multiple projects.