4.6 Article

Preventable hospital admissions related to medication (HARM): Cost analysis of the HARM study

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 34-40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.024

关键词

Pharmacy; Direct costs; Health care costs; Productivity costs; Adverse drug event

资金

  1. Dutch Order of Medical Specialists

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Adverse drug events (ADEs) can cause serious harm to patients and can lead to hospitalization or even death. ADEs are a burden not only to patients and their relatives, but also to society and have the potential to involve high costs. To provide more information on the economic burden of preventable adverse drug events of outpatients, we performed a cost study on the data collected in the Hospital Admissions Related to Medication (HARM) study. In this study we examined the frequency, preventability, and risk factors for hospital admissions related to medication. Methods: The average costs for a preventable medication-related hospital admission were calculated by summing the direct medical costs and the production losses of all the preventable admissions, taking into account the different types of hospitals (academic and general) and the age of the admitted patients. Results: The average medical costs for one preventable medication-related hospital admission were (sic)5461. The average production loss costs for one admission were (sic)1712 for a person younger than 65 years of age. Combining the medical costs and the costs of production losses resulted in average costs of (sic)6009 for one, potentially preventable, medication-related hospital admission for all ages. Conclusions: The costs of potentially preventable hospital admissions related to medication are considerable. Therefore, patient safety interventions to prevent ADEs and hospital admissions may be cost-effective or even cost saving. Copyright (C) 2011, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据