Literature DB >> 19588288

A cost-benefit analysis of endoscopy reporting methods: handwritten, dictated and computerized.

M J M Groenen1, S Ajodhia, J Y F Wynstra, W Lesterhuis, E J H M van de Weijgert, E J Kuipers, R J T Ouwendijk.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy investigations are frequently requested by gastroenterologists, general practitioners and other physicians. In addition to the classic methods of report writing, several electronic endoscopic report systems are currently available. The aim of the study was to evaluate the costs of three different ways of producing reports; by hand, by dictation, or by computer.
METHODS: Three methods of report writing were compared, with special attention to costs. The endoscopy process was analyzed, from arrival of the patient to sending the report to the referring doctor, and including production of endoscopic images or video, logging of used endoscopes and their disinfection, and storage costs for endoscopy data.
RESULTS: During the first 5 years, the mean costs per procedure were Euro 4.78 for handwritten, Euro 6.39 for dictated and Euro 8.90 for computerized reports. Due to depreciation, after this initial period, the respective costs declined to Euro 4.37, Euro 5.20 and Euro 5.13, respectively. Despite high initial costs, a cost-benefit analysis already revealed a financial benefit from a computerized system after 3 years.
CONCLUSIONS: The electronic production of an endoscopic report turned out to be the most expensive way of report writing during the first 5 years, due to high initial costs. After 5 years the costs of the different systems were comparable with each other. Cost-benefit analysis showed a positive financial benefit for computerized reports after 3 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19588288     DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1214852

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  6 in total

1.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Roger Hollingworth; Donald Macintosh; Mark Borgaonkar; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.522

2.  Making a quality endoscopy report.

Authors:  Mark R Borgaonkar
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  A primer on endoscopic electronic medical records.

Authors:  Ashish Atreja; Maged Rizk; Brooke Gurland
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2010-02

Review 4.  Location, size, and distance: criteria for quality in esophagogastroduodenos copy reporting for pre-operative gastric cancer evaluation.

Authors:  Nikila C Ravindran; Jovanka Vasilevska-Ristovska; Natalie G Coburn; Alyson Mahar; Yimeng Zhang; Nadia Gunraj; Rinku Sutradhar; Calvin H Law; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement.

Authors:  Michael Bretthauer; Lars Aabakken; Evelien Dekker; Michal F Kaminski; Thomas Rösch; Rolf Hultcrantz; Stepan Suchanek; Rodrigo Jover; Ernst J Kuipers; Raf Bisschops; Cristiano Spada; Roland Valori; Dirk Domagk; Colin Rees; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 6.  Endoscopy reporting standards.

Authors:  Daphnée Beaulieu; Alan N Barkun; Catherine Dubé; Jill Tinmouth; Pierre Hallé; Myriam Martel
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.522

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.