| Literature DB >> 34006260 |
Demetrio Gonzalez-Vergara1, Sergio Marquez-Pelaez2, Jose David Alfonso-Arias3, Julia Perez-Ramos3, Jose Luis Rojas-Box3, Manuel Aumesquet-Nosea2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To conduct a pilot study on an alternative model for the provision of respiratory therapies in sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) by internalizing the service with the purchase, monitoring and control of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) equipment by the hospital.Entities:
Keywords: Apnea-hypopnea syndrome during sleep; CPAP; Costs; Satisfaction
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34006260 PMCID: PMC8130106 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06474-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Direct costs included in the analysis
| Concept | Cost a | Number used during follow-up | Total cost during follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPAP | 151.68 € | 21 | 3185.28 € |
| Nasal mask | 35.48 € | 45 | 1596.60 € |
| Nasal gel mask | 56.00 € | 3 | 168.00 € |
| Oronasal mask | 93.78 € | 5 | 468.90 € |
| Humidifier | 94.27 € | 4 | 377.08 € |
| Tubes | 12.63 € | 3 | 37.89 € |
| Accessory mask | 2.65 € | 12 | 31.80 € |
| Filter | 5.50 € | 7 | 38.50 € |
a Retail price with value-added tax included
Budget impact extrapolating data to the entire health area including three local hospitals
| Traditional system cost | Alternative system cost | Cost difference | Difference (percentage) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 2015 | 376,073.09 | 379,053.01 | − 2979.92 | −0.79 |
| Year 2016 | 414,545.37 | 183,882.33 | 230,663.04 | 55.64 |
| Year 2017 | 456,953.36 | 208,362.92 | 248,590.44 | 54.40 |
| Year 2018 | 503,699.69 | 224,542.51 | 279,157.18 | 55.42 |
| Year 2019 | 555,228.16 | 247,632.86 | 307,595.30 | 55.40 |
| Total | 2306,499.66 | 1243,473.62 | 1,063,026.04 | 46.09 |
Fig. 1Analysis of sensitivity on budgetary impact presenting the estimated savings considering increases in the price of devices by 25 and 50%
Results of the satisfaction survey
| Internalized system results | External company results | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of satisfaction with the explanations and the treatment received. | |||
| Very satisfied | 15 (71.4%) | 2 (11.7%) | < 0.001 |
| Satisfied | 6 (28.6%) | 12 (70.6%) | |
| Dissatisfied | 0 | 2 (11.7%) | |
| Very dissatisfied | 0 | 1 (5.8%) | |
| Quality of service provided | |||
| Very good | 15 (71.4%) | 2 (11.7%) | < 0.001 |
| Good | 6 (28.6%) | 13 (76.4%) | |
| Bad | 0 | 0 | |
| Very bad | 0 | 2 (11.7%) | |
| Which of the two systems offers a better service? | |||
| External company | 0 (0%) | ||
| Internalized system | 12 (70.6%) | ||
| Both equally | 5 (29.4%) | ||
* Calculated using the Chi-square test