Increasing value in research: cost evaluations in health professions education

Economic evaluation of CPD activities for healthcare professionals: A scoping review

CONTEXT

Continuing professional development (CPD) activities for healthcare professionals are central to the optimisation of patient safety and person-centred care. Although there is some evidence on the economics of healthcare professionals training, very little is known about the costs and benefits of CPD.

METHODS

This study aimed to review the research evidence on economic evaluations of CPD activities for healthcare professionals. CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Econlit and Web of Science databases were used to identify articles published between 2010 and 2021.

RESULTS

Of the 6791 titles identified, 119 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this scoping review. The majority of articles were partial economic evaluations of CPD programmes (n = 70); half were from the USA. Studies that included multiple professions were most prevalent (n = 54), followed by nurses (n = 34) and doctors (n = 23). Patient outcomes were the most commonly reported outcome (n = 51), followed by change in clinical practice (n = 38) and healthcare professionals' knowledge gain (n = 19).

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent call for more evidence regarding the economic evaluations of CPD. This is particularly important in view of the rising costs of healthcare globally. The majority of studies included in this review did not provide detailed information on the evaluations and many focused exclusively on the cost of CPD activities rather than outcomes.

Unpacking economic programme theory for supervision training: Preliminary steps towards realist economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Cost studies are increasingly popular given resource constraints. While scholars stress the context-dependent nature of cost, and the importance of theory, cost studies remain context-blind and atheoretical. However, realist economic evaluation (REE) privileges context and the testing/refinement of economic programme theory. This preliminary REE serves to test and refine economic programme theory for supervision training programmes of different durations to better inform future programme design/implementation.

METHODS

Our preliminary REE unpacked how short (half-day) and extended (12 week) supervision training programmes in Victoria, Australia, produced costs and outcomes. We employed mixed methods: qualitative realist and quantitative cost methods. Economically optimised programme models were developed guided by identified cost-sensitive mechanisms and contexts.

RESULTS

As part of identified context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) for both training programmes, we found a wider diversity of positive outcomes but greater costs for the extended programme (11 outcomes; AU$3069/learner) compared with the short programme (7 outcomes; $385/learner). We identified four shared cost-sensitive mechanisms for both programmes (training duration, learner protected time, learner engagement, and facilitator competence) and one shared cost-sensitive context (learners' supervisory experience). We developed two economically optimised programme models: (1) short programme for experienced supervisors facilitated by senior educators ($406/learner); and (2) extended programme for inexperienced supervisors facilitated by junior educators ($2104/learner).

DISCUSSION

Our initial economic programme theory was somewhat supported, refuted and refined. Results were partly consistent with previous research, but also extended it through unpacking cost-sensitive mechanisms and contexts. Although our preliminary REE fills a pressing gap in the methodology literature, conducting REE was challenging given our desire to integrate economic and realist analyses fully, and remain faithful to realist principles. Attention to training duration and experience levels of the facilitator-learner dyad may help to balance the cost and outcomes of training programmes.

The Financial Cost of Interprofessional Ambulatory Training: What's the Bottom Line?

BACKGROUND

Team-based care is recommended as a building block of high-performing primary care but has not been widely adapted in training sites. Cost may be one barrier to a team-based approach.

OBJECTIVE

We quantified incremental annual faculty and staff costs as well as potential cost savings associated with an interprofessional (IP) ambulatory training program compared to a traditional residency clinic at the same site.

METHODS

Cost calculations for the 2017-2018 academic year were made using US Department of Labor median salaries by profession and divided by the number of residents trained per year. Cost implications of lower no-show rates were calculated by multiplying the difference in no-show rate by the number of scheduled appointments, and then by the weighted average of the reimbursement rate.

RESULTS

A total of 1572 arrived appointments were seen by the 10 residents in the IP program compared with 8689 arrived appointments seen by 57 residents in the traditional clinic. The no-show rate was 11.5% (265 of 2311) in the IP program and 19.2% (2532 of 13 154) in the traditional clinic (P < .001). Total cost to the health system through higher staffing needs was $113,897, or $11,390 per trained resident.

CONCLUSIONS

Total costs of the IP model due to higher faculty and staff to resident ratios totaled $11,390 per resident per year. Understanding the faculty and staff costs and potential cost-saving opportunities associated with transformation to an IP model may assist in sustainability.

The economic costs of selecting medical students: An Australian case study

CONTEXT

The design of selection methods must balance, amongst a range of factors, the desire to select the best possible future doctors with the reality of our resource-constrained environment. Examining the cost of selection processes enables us to identify areas in which efficiencies may be gained.

METHODS

A cost description study was conducted based on selection for 2018 entry into medical school directly from secondary school. The perspectives of applicants, volunteer interviewers and the admitting institution were considered. Costs were modelled based on the Monash University (Australia) selection process, which uses a combination of secondary school matriculation score, aptitude test score (Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test) and multiple mini-interview score. A variety of data sources were utilised, including bespoke surveys, audit data and existing literature. All costs are expressed in 2018 Australian dollars (AU$). Applicant behaviours in preparing for selection tests were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 381 of 383 applicants returned the survey. Over 70% of applicants had utilised commercial preparation materials. The median total cost to applicants was AU$2586 (interquartile range [IQR] AU$1574-3999), including costs to both prepare for and attend selection tests. Of 217 volunteer interviewers, 108 returned the survey. These were primarily health professional clinicians at a mid-career stage. The median total cost to interviewers was AU$452 (IQR AU$252-715) for participation in a half-day interview session, largely due to the loss of income. The cost to the admitting institution was AU$269 per applicant, accounted for by the costs of equipment and consumables (52%), personnel (34%) and facilities (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of student selection for medical school are substantial. Understanding costs facilitates achievement of the objective of selecting the desired future medical workforce within the constraints of the resources available. Opportunities for change may arise from changes in applicant preparation behaviours, opportunities for economies of scale, and efficiencies driven by technological solutions.