Fredericus Hj van Loon1,2, Tina Leggett3, Arthur Ra Bouwman2,4, Angelique Tm Dierick-van Daele5,6. 1. Department of Technical and Anesthesia Nursing Sciences, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Physeon GmbH, Schaffhausen, Switzerland. 4. Department of Signal Processing Systems and Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Research and Education, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 6. Department of People and Health Sciences, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: In modern healthcare there is increased focus on optimizing efficiency for every treatment or performed procedure, of which reduction of costs is an important part. With this study, authors aimed to calculate the cost of peripheral intravenous cannulation including all components that influence its price. METHODS: This observational cost-utilization study was conducted between May and October 2016. Hospitalized adults were included in this study, who received usual care. Peripheral intravenous cannulation was carried out according to current hospital protocols, based on international standards for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion. Device costs were assumed equal to the number of attempts multiplied by the fixed supply costs and applicable costs for additional attempts, whereas personnel costs for both nurses and physicians were based on their hourly salary. RESULTS: A total of 1512 patients were included in this study, with a mean of 1.37 (±0.77) attempts and a mean time of 3.5 (±2.7) min were needed for a successful catheter insertion. Adjusted mean costs for peripheral intravenous cannulation were estimated to be €11.67 for each patient, but costs increase as the number of attempts for successful cannulation increases. The cost for patients with a successful first attempt was lower, at approximately €9.32 but increased markedly to €65.34 when five attempts were needed. CONCLUSION: Prevention of multiple attempts may lower the costs, and furthermore, additional technologies applied by nurses to individual patients based on predicted difficult intravenous access will make the application of these additional technologies, in turn, more efficient.
AIM: In modern healthcare there is increased focus on optimizing efficiency for every treatment or performed procedure, of which reduction of costs is an important part. With this study, authors aimed to calculate the cost of peripheral intravenous cannulation including all components that influence its price. METHODS: This observational cost-utilization study was conducted between May and October 2016. Hospitalized adults were included in this study, who received usual care. Peripheral intravenous cannulation was carried out according to current hospital protocols, based on international standards for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion. Device costs were assumed equal to the number of attempts multiplied by the fixed supply costs and applicable costs for additional attempts, whereas personnel costs for both nurses and physicians were based on their hourly salary. RESULTS: A total of 1512 patients were included in this study, with a mean of 1.37 (±0.77) attempts and a mean time of 3.5 (±2.7) min were needed for a successful catheter insertion. Adjusted mean costs for peripheral intravenous cannulation were estimated to be €11.67 for each patient, but costs increase as the number of attempts for successful cannulation increases. The cost for patients with a successful first attempt was lower, at approximately €9.32 but increased markedly to €65.34 when five attempts were needed. CONCLUSION: Prevention of multiple attempts may lower the costs, and furthermore, additional technologies applied by nurses to individual patients based on predicted difficult intravenous access will make the application of these additional technologies, in turn, more efficient.
Authors: Paulo Santos-Costa; Mariana Alves; Carolina Sousa; Liliana B Sousa; Filipe Paiva-Santos; Rafael A Bernardes; Filipa Ventura; Anabela Salgueiro-Oliveira; Pedro Parreira; Margarida Vieira; João Graveto Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Miguel Angel Rodriguez-Calero; Joan Ernest de Pedro-Gomez; Luis Javier Molero-Ballester; Ismael Fernandez-Fernandez; Catalina Matamalas-Massanet; Luis Moreno-Mejias; Ian Blanco-Mavillard; Ana Belén Moya-Suarez; Celia Personat-Labrador; José Miguel Morales-Asencio Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-03-15 Impact factor: 4.241