4.1 Article

The Prevalence and Cost of the Faint and Fall Problem in the State of Utah

Journal

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 278-283

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02930.x

Keywords

faint; fall; cost; Utah

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Understanding the frequency and economic impact of faint and fall is a prerequisite for the creation of cost-effective diagnostic approaches. Methods: We evaluated the total number of patients presenting with faint or fall to the University of Utah Health Care System between November 1, 2008, and October 31, 2009. Using these data, we estimated the prevalence and total cost of the faint and fall problem in the state of Utah. Results: A total of 1,936 and 6,043 patients presented with faint and fall resulting in a total number of visits equal to 2,701 and 8,163, respectively. The yearly prevalence of faints was 9.5 patients (13.2 visits) per 1,000 inhabitants and the yearly prevalence of falls was 29.8 patients (40.2 visits) per 1,000 inhabitants. The prevalence of faints and falls progressively increased with age, reaching the values of 40 and 115 per 1,000 inhabitants in subjects aged >80 years. In both patient populations, two-thirds of visits were outpatient evaluations. While the cardiovascular service was in in the outpatient evaluation of faint visits in 24% of the cases, <1% of outpatient fall visits resulted in a cardiovascular consultation. The average payments received per faint and fall patient evaluations were $2,517 and $3,200, respectively, resulting in an estimated yearly cost equal to $90,901,958 and $351,959,040, respectively. Conclusion: This study highlights the magnitude of the faint and fall problem in the state of Utah. Our results provide all stakeholders with a frame of reference for the creation of cost-effective diagnostic approaches. (PACE 2011; 34:278-283)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available