BACKGROUND: Although Thrombolysis has been licensed in the UK since 2003, it is still administered only to a small percentage of eligible patients. AIM: We consider the impact of investing the impact of thrombolysis on important acute stroke services, and the effect on quality of life. The concept is illustrated using data from the Northern Ireland Stroke Service. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: We first present results of survival analysis utilizing length of stay (LOS) for discharge destinations, based on data from the Belfast City Hospital (BCH). None of these patients actually received thrombolysis but from those who would have been eligible, we created two initial groups, the first representing a scenario where they received thrombolysis and the second comprising those who do not receive thrombolysis. On the basis of the survival analysis, we created several subgroups based on discharge destination. We then developed a discrete event simulation (DES) model, where each group is a patient pathway within the simulation. Coxian phase type distributions were used to model the group LOS. Various scenarios were explored focusing on cost-effectiveness across hospital, community and social services had thrombolysis been administered to these patients, and the possible improvement in quality of life, should the proportion of patients who are administered thrombolysis be increased. Our aim in simulating various scenarios for this historical group of patients is to assess what the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis would have been under different scenarios; from this we can infer the likely cost-effectiveness of future policies. RESULTS: The cost of thrombolysis is offset by reduction in hospital, community rehabilitation and institutional care costs, with a corresponding improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSION: Our model suggests that provision of thrombolysis would produce moderate overall improvement to the service assuming current levels of funding.
BACKGROUND: Although Thrombolysis has been licensed in the UK since 2003, it is still administered only to a small percentage of eligible patients. AIM: We consider the impact of investing the impact of thrombolysis on important acute stroke services, and the effect on quality of life. The concept is illustrated using data from the Northern Ireland Stroke Service. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: We first present results of survival analysis utilizing length of stay (LOS) for discharge destinations, based on data from the Belfast City Hospital (BCH). None of these patients actually received thrombolysis but from those who would have been eligible, we created two initial groups, the first representing a scenario where they received thrombolysis and the second comprising those who do not receive thrombolysis. On the basis of the survival analysis, we created several subgroups based on discharge destination. We then developed a discrete event simulation (DES) model, where each group is a patient pathway within the simulation. Coxian phase type distributions were used to model the group LOS. Various scenarios were explored focusing on cost-effectiveness across hospital, community and social services had thrombolysis been administered to these patients, and the possible improvement in quality of life, should the proportion of patients who are administered thrombolysis be increased. Our aim in simulating various scenarios for this historical group of patients is to assess what the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis would have been under different scenarios; from this we can infer the likely cost-effectiveness of future policies. RESULTS: The cost of thrombolysis is offset by reduction in hospital, community rehabilitation and institutional care costs, with a corresponding improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSION: Our model suggests that provision of thrombolysis would produce moderate overall improvement to the service assuming current levels of funding.
Authors: Argelio Santos; James Gurling; Marcel F Dvorak; Vanessa K Noonan; Michael G Fehlings; Anthony S Burns; Rachel Lewis; Lesley Soril; Nader Fallah; John T Street; Lise Bélanger; Andrea Townson; Liping Liang; Derek Atkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pelham Barton; James P Sheppard; Cristina M Penaloza-Ramos; Sue Jowett; Gary A Ford; Daniel Lasserson; Jonathan Mant; Ruth M Mellor; Tom Quinn; Peter M Rothwell; David Sandler; Don Sims; Richard J McManus Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Thomas Monks; David Worthington; Michael Allen; Martin Pitt; Ken Stein; Martin A James Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.655