OBJECTIVE: To carry out an economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for non-urgent skin problems compared with hospital outpatient care. DESIGN:Cost effectiveness analysis and cost consequences analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING:General practitioner with special interest dermatology service covering 29 general practices in Bristol. PARTICIPANTS: Adults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic who were potentially suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 2:1 to receive either care by general practitioner with special interest service or usual hospital outpatient care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs to NHS, patients, and companions, and costs of lost production. Cost effectiveness, using the two primary outcomes of dermatology life quality index scores and improved patient perceived access, was assessed by incremental cost effectiveness ratios and cost effectiveness acceptability curves. Cost consequences are presented in relation to all costs and both primary and secondary outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Costs to the NHS for patients attending the general practitioner with special interest service were 208 pounds sterling (361 dollars; 308 euro) compared with 118 pounds sterling for hospital outpatient care. Based on analysis with imputation of missing data, costs to patients and companions were 48 pounds sterling and 51 pounds sterling, respectively; costs of lost production were 27 pounds sterling and 34 pounds sterling, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for general practitioner with special interest care over outpatient care were 540 pounds sterling per one point gain in the dermatology life quality index and 66 pounds sterling per 10 point change in the access scale. CONCLUSIONS: The general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology is more costly than hospital outpatient care, but this additional cost needs to be weighed against improved access and broadly similar health outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To carry out an economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for non-urgent skin problems compared with hospital outpatient care. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis and cost consequences analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practitioner with special interest dermatology service covering 29 general practices in Bristol. PARTICIPANTS: Adults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic who were potentially suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomised 2:1 to receive either care by general practitioner with special interest service or usual hospital outpatient care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs to NHS, patients, and companions, and costs of lost production. Cost effectiveness, using the two primary outcomes of dermatology life quality index scores and improved patient perceived access, was assessed by incremental cost effectiveness ratios and cost effectiveness acceptability curves. Cost consequences are presented in relation to all costs and both primary and secondary outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Costs to the NHS for patients attending the general practitioner with special interest service were 208 pounds sterling (361 dollars; 308 euro) compared with 118 pounds sterling for hospital outpatient care. Based on analysis with imputation of missing data, costs to patients and companions were 48 pounds sterling and 51 pounds sterling, respectively; costs of lost production were 27 pounds sterling and 34 pounds sterling, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for general practitioner with special interest care over outpatient care were 540 pounds sterling per one point gain in the dermatology life quality index and 66 pounds sterling per 10 point change in the access scale. CONCLUSIONS: The general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology is more costly than hospital outpatient care, but this additional cost needs to be weighed against improved access and broadly similar health outcomes.
Authors: Chris Salisbury; Alison Noble; Sue Horrocks; Zoe Crosby; Viv Harrison; Joanna Coast; David de Berker; Tim Peters Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-12-06