IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i1d10.1007_s40258-017-0360-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Different Automated Medication Systems Implemented in a Danish Hospital Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Bettina Wulff Risør

    (University of Southern Denmark
    Hospital Pharmacy, Central Denmark Region)

  • Marianne Lisby

    (Aarhus University Hospital)

  • Jan Sørensen

    (University of Southern Denmark
    Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland)

Abstract

Introduction Automated medication systems have been found to reduce errors in the medication process, but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of such systems. The objective of this study was to perform a model-based indirect cost-effectiveness comparison of three different, real-world automated medication systems compared with current standard practice. Methods The considered automated medication systems were a patient-specific automated medication system (psAMS), a non-patient-specific automated medication system (npsAMS), and a complex automated medication system (cAMS). The economic evaluation used original effect and cost data from prospective, controlled, before-and-after studies of medication systems implemented at a Danish hematological ward and an acute medical unit. Effectiveness was described as the proportion of clinical and procedural error opportunities that were associated with one or more errors. An error was defined as a deviation from the electronic prescription, from standard hospital policy, or from written procedures. The cost assessment was based on 6-month standardization of observed cost data. The model-based comparative cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with system-specific assumptions of the effect size and costs in scenarios with consumptions of 15,000, 30,000, and 45,000 doses per 6-month period. Results With 30,000 doses the cost-effectiveness model showed that the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per avoided clinical error was €24 for the psAMS, €26 for the npsAMS, and €386 for the cAMS. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the three systems in relation to different valuations of an avoided error showed that the psAMS was the most cost-effective system regardless of error type or valuation. Conclusion The model-based indirect comparison against the conventional practice showed that psAMS and npsAMS were more cost-effective than the cAMS alternative, and that psAMS was more cost-effective than npsAMS.

Suggested Citation

  • Bettina Wulff Risør & Marianne Lisby & Jan Sørensen, 2018. "Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Different Automated Medication Systems Implemented in a Danish Hospital Setting," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 91-106, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0360-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0360-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-017-0360-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-017-0360-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Andrew H. Briggs & David E. Wonderling & Christopher Z. Mooney, 1997. "Pulling cost‐effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non‐parametric approach to confidence interval estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 327-340, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohsen Sadatsafavi; & Carlo Marra; & Lawrence McCandless & Stirling Bryan, 2012. "The challenge of incorporating external evidence in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses: the use of resampling methods," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/24, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    3. Marike R. C. Hendriks & Maiwenn J. Al & Michel H. C. Bleijlevens & Jolanda C. M. van Haastregt & Harry F. J. M. Crebolder & Jacques Th. M. van Eijk & Silvia M. A. A. Evers, 2013. "Continuous versus Intermittent Data Collection of Health Care Utilization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 998-1008, November.
    4. Sanjib Saha & Birgitta Grahn & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Kjerstin Stigmar & Sara Holmberg & Johan Jarl, 2019. "Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 317-327, March.
    5. Francisco Jódar-Sánchez & Amaia Malet-Larrea & José Martín & Leticia García-Mochón & M. López del Amo & Fernando Martínez-Martínez & Miguel Gastelurrutia-Garralda & Victoria García-Cárdenas & Daniel S, 2015. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 599-610, June.
    6. David Meads & Andrea Marshall & Claire Hulme & Janet Dunn & Hugo Ford, 2016. "The Cost Effectiveness of Docetaxel and Active Symptom Control versus Active Symptom Control Alone for Refractory Oesophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Economic Analysis of the COUGAR-02 Trial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 33-42, January.
    7. Luís Azevedo & Altamiro Costa-Pereira & Liliane Mendonça & Cláudia Dias & José Castro-Lopes, 2016. "The economic impact of chronic pain: a nationwide population-based cost-of-illness study in Portugal," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 87-98, January.
    8. Johns, Benjamin & Probandari, Ari & Mahendradhata, Yodi & Ahmad, Riris Andono, 2009. "An analysis of the costs and treatment success of collaborative arrangements among public and private providers for tuberculosis control in Indonesia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 214-224, December.
    9. Rahman, Shaikh Moksadur, 2020. "Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Bangladesh," Asian Business Review, Asian Business Consortium, vol. 10(2), pages 99-108.
    10. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.
    11. Bridgelall, Raj & Stubbing, Edward, 2021. "Forecasting the effects of autonomous vehicles on land use," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    12. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    13. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    14. Bevilacqua, Maurizio & Ciarapica, Filippo Emanuele, 2018. "Human factor risk management in the process industry: A case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 149-159.
    15. Naveena Prakasam & Louisa Huxtable-Thomas, 2021. "Reddit: Affordances as an Enabler for Shifting Loyalties," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 723-751, June.
    16. Colin Jerolmack & Alexandra K. Murphy, 2019. "The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(4), pages 801-827, November.
    17. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    18. Valeriy Makarov & Albert Bakhtizin, 2014. "The Estimation Of The Regions’ Efficiency Of The Russian Federation Including The Intellectual Capital, The Characteristics Of Readiness For Innovation, Level Of Well-Being, And Quality Of Life," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(4), pages 9-30.
    19. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    20. Iris Arends & Ute Bültmann & Willem van Rhenen & Henk Groen & Jac J L van der Klink, 2013. "Economic Evaluation of a Problem Solving Intervention to Prevent Recurrent Sickness Absence in Workers with Common Mental Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0360-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.