4.3 Article

Health care cost savings from Australian Poisons Information Centre advice for low risk exposure calls: SNAPSHOT 2

期刊

CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 58, 期 7, 页码 752-757

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2019.1686513

关键词

Economics; health economics; cost effectiveness; health resource utilisation; Australian Poisons Centre

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [1055176]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: To estimate cost savings from the Australian Poisons Information Centres (PIC) through reductions in unnecessary health resources following unintentional low toxicity poisonings. Methods: Two telephone surveys were conducted. The first to PIC callers over a one-week period about unintentional exposures where the callers' alternate course of action in the hypothetical situation in which the PIC did not exist was questioned. The second survey to determine the proportion of callers followed PIC advice. We estimated cost savings associated with instances where individuals acted on advice not to present to hospital, when they indicated they would have otherwise as well as savings from preventing unnecessarily utilisation of medical resources. Database records of unintentional poisonings from all Australian PICs for 2017 were used. Results: A total of 958 consecutive callers were surveyed. PIC advised 91% of callers to stay at home, remaining callers were referred to hospital (5%), to their GP (3%) or given other recommended management advice (1%). PIC advice was followed by 97.6% of callers. In PIC absence, 22% of callers who were advised to stay home would have presented to hospital (3% via ambulance), 8% would visit their General Practitioner (GP) and only 9% would stay at home. In 2017, PICs were called about 94,913 unintentional poisonings; and PICs generated at least $10.1 million in annual savings. Conclusion: In 2017, PICs provided at least a three-fold return on investment for every dollar invested, demonstrating that PICs are a highly cost effective service.

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

4.3
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