BACKGROUND:Dyspepsia drug costs account for nearly 0.5% of the National Health Service budget. We hypothesised that improved management of dyspepsia would lead to reduced drug costs. AIM: To determine whether a multifaceted educational strategy for general practitioners aimed at improving quality of dyspepsia management can control dyspepsia costs without increasing demand for endoscopy. METHODS: A multifaceted educational intervention was delivered to general practitioners in West Gloucestershire but not to those in the east of the county. Dyspepsia drug costs, the primary outcome measure, were obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority and compared between the two sides of the county. Referral rates for endoscopy, admission to the gastrointestinal bleed unit, and delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer were secondary measures recorded in West Gloucestershire only. RESULTS: Following the intervention, drug costs declined and then stabilised in West Gloucestershire. Drug costs peaked in the control group 15 months after those in the intervention group. Using an autoregressive integrated moving average model it was estimated the overall costs in the intervention group reduced by 57.9 pence per head of population per half year (95% confidence interval 45.8-69.9 pence/half year; p<0.0001) in comparison with the control group. This difference was maintained for three consecutive years resulting in a cumulative saving of pound1.13 million. Referral rates for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy remained stable during the study period. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted educational intervention for general practitioners designed to improve the quality of care of patients with dyspepsia is an effective means of controlling dyspepsia drug costs without increasing demand for endoscopy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Dyspepsia drug costs account for nearly 0.5% of the National Health Service budget. We hypothesised that improved management of dyspepsia would lead to reduced drug costs. AIM: To determine whether a multifaceted educational strategy for general practitioners aimed at improving quality of dyspepsia management can control dyspepsia costs without increasing demand for endoscopy. METHODS: A multifaceted educational intervention was delivered to general practitioners in West Gloucestershire but not to those in the east of the county. Dyspepsia drug costs, the primary outcome measure, were obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority and compared between the two sides of the county. Referral rates for endoscopy, admission to the gastrointestinal bleed unit, and delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer were secondary measures recorded in West Gloucestershire only. RESULTS: Following the intervention, drug costs declined and then stabilised in West Gloucestershire. Drug costs peaked in the control group 15 months after those in the intervention group. Using an autoregressive integrated moving average model it was estimated the overall costs in the intervention group reduced by 57.9 pence per head of population per half year (95% confidence interval 45.8-69.9 pence/half year; p<0.0001) in comparison with the control group. This difference was maintained for three consecutive years resulting in a cumulative saving of pound1.13 million. Referral rates for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy remained stable during the study period. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted educational intervention for general practitioners designed to improve the quality of care of patients with dyspepsia is an effective means of controlling dyspepsia drug costs without increasing demand for endoscopy.
Authors: F E Silverstein; D Y Graham; J R Senior; H W Davies; B J Struthers; R M Bittman; G S Geis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-08-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bisanth Thushila Batuwitage; Jeremy G C Kingham; Nia Emma Morgan; Ruth Louise Bartlett Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: J G Williams; S E Roberts; M F Ali; W Y Cheung; D R Cohen; G Demery; A Edwards; M Greer; M D Hellier; H A Hutchings; B Ip; M F Longo; I T Russell; H A Snooks; J C Williams Journal: Gut Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 23.059