Literature DB >> 19597807

Comparison of two different running models for the shock wave lithotripsy machine in Taipei City Hospital: self-support versus outsourcing cooperation.

Chi-Yi Huang1, Shiou-Sheng Chen, Li-Kuei Chen.   

Abstract

To compare two different running models including self-support and outsourcing cooperation for the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) machine in Taipei City Hospital, we made a retrospective study. Self-support means that the hospital has to buy an SWL machine and get all the payment from SWL. In outsourcing cooperation, the cooperative company provides an SWL machine and shares the payment with the hospital. Between January 2002 and December 2006, we used self-support for the SWL machine, and from January 2007 to December 2008, we used outsourcing cooperation. We used the method of full costing to calculate the cost of SWL, and the break-even point was the lowest number of treatment sessions of SWL to make balance of payments every month. Quality parameters including stone-free rate, retreatment rate, additional procedures and complication rate were evaluated. When outsourcing cooperation was used, there were significantly more treatment sessions of SWL every month than when utilizing self-support (36.3 +/- 5.1 vs. 48.1 +/- 8.4, P = 0.03). The cost of SWL for every treatment session was significantly higher using self-support than with outsourcing cooperation (25027.5 +/- 1789.8 NT$ vs. 21367.4 +/- 201.0 NT$). The break-even point was 28.3 (treatment sessions) for self-support, and 28.4 for outsourcing cooperation, when the hospital got 40% of the payment, which would decrease if the percentage increased. No significant differences were noticed for stone-free rate, retreatment rate, additional procedures and complication rate of SWL between the two running models. Besides, outsourcing cooperation had lower cost (every treatment session), but a greater number of treatment sessions of SWL every month than self-support.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19597807     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-009-0206-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Res        ISSN: 0300-5623


  14 in total

1.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  R Peschel; G Janetschek; G Bartsch
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi.

Authors:  D A Kapoor; J E Leech; W T Yap; J F Rose; R Kabler; J J Mowad
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis.

Authors:  Margaret S Pearle; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Gary C Curhan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  Economics of stone management.

Authors:  Yair Lotan; Margaret S Pearle
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 5.  Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Sanjeev Madaan; Adrian D Joyce
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.309

6.  Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association.

Authors:  J W Segura; G M Preminger; D G Assimos; S P Dretler; R I Kahn; J E Lingeman; J N Macaluso
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  N F Logarakis; M A Jewett; J Luymes; R J Honey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Matched pair analysis of shock wave lithotripsy effectiveness for comparison of lithotriptors.

Authors:  Andrew J Portis; Yan Yan; John G Pattaras; Cassio Andreoni; Robert Moore; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  John S Lam; Tricia D Greene; Mantu Gupta
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Therapeutic options for proximal ureter stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy.

Authors:  Ching-Fang Wu; Chih-Shou Chen; Wei-Yu Lin; Jia-Jen Shee; Chun-Liang Lin; Yu Chen; Wen-Shih Huang
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.