A standardized framework to evaluate the quality of studies using TDABC in healthcare: the TDABC in Healthcare Consortium Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

This Consensus Statement introduces a standardized framework, in a checklist format, to support future development and reporting of TDABC studies in healthcare, and to encourage their reproducibility. Additionally, it establishes the first formal networking of TDABC researchers through the creation of the TDABC in Healthcare Consortium.

METHODS

A consensus group of researchers reviewed the most relevant TDABC studies available in Medline and Scopus databases to identify the initial elements of the checklist. Using a Focus Group process, each element received a recommendation regarding where in the scientific article section it should be placed and whether the element was required or suggested. A questionnaire was circulated with expert researchers in the field to provide additional recommendations regarding the content of the checklist and the strength of recommendation for each included element.

RESULTS

The TDABC standardized framework includes 32 elements, provides recommendations where in the scientific article to include each element, and comments on the strength of each recommendation. All 32 elements were validated, with 21 elements classified as mandatory and 11 as suggested but not mandatory.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first standardized framework to support the development and reporting of TDABC research in healthcare and to stablish a community of experts in TDABC methodology. We expect that it can contribute to scale strategies that would result in cost-savings outcomes and in value-oriented strategies that can be adopted in healthcare systems and institutions.

Patient level cost of diabetes self-management education programmes: an international evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to examine the value of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) in understanding the process and costs of delivering diabetes self-management education (DSME) programmes in a multicountry comparative study.

SETTING

Outpatient settings in five European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, UK) and two countries outside Europe, Taiwan and Israel.

PARTICIPANTS

Providers of DSME programmes across participating countries (N=16) including healthcare professionals, administrators and patients taking part in DSME programmes.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES

Primary measure: time spent by providers in the delivery of DSME and resources consumed in order to compute programme costs. Secondary measures: self-report measures of behavioural self-management and diabetes disease/health-related outcomes.

RESULTS

We found significant variation in costs and the processes of how DSME programmes are provided across and within countries. Variations in costs were driven by a combination of price variances, mix of personnel skill and efficiency variances. Higher cost programmes were not found to have achieved better relative outcomes. The findings highlight the value of TDABC in calculating a patient level cost and potential of the methodology to identify process improvements in guiding the optimal allocation of scarce resources in diabetes care, in particular for DSME that is often underfunded.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to measure programme costs using estimates of the actual resources used to educate patients about managing their medical condition and is the first study to map such costs to self-reported behavioural and disease outcomes. The results of this study will inform clinicians, managers and policy makers seeking to enhance the delivery of DSME programmes. The findings highlight the benefits of adopting a TDABC approach to understanding the drivers of the cost of DSME programmes in a multicountry study to reveal opportunities to bend the cost curve for DSME.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of port removal outside of the operating room among pediatric patients

PURPOSE

The current emphasis on fiscally responsible health spending in the era of the Affordable Care Act and other health care reform necessitates cost-conscious delivery of care. "Value" in health care is defined as the quality of care divided by the cost. As such, health systems optimize value by providing the most cost-effective care possible without sacrificing safety or outcomes. Elective, minimal risk surgical procedures in children may be value-enhanced by moving from an operating room (OR) to a more cost-efficient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and cost of performing the removal of implantable central venous access devices ("ports") in locations other than the main OR.

METHODS

We compared port removal at three sites: 1. Main OR, 2. Satellite OR, and 3. Clinic Procedure Room. This was a mixed-methods study including a retrospective review of medical records and prospective observation/interviewing. To calculate cost without the inherent biases of hospital charges, costs, and payments, we utilized the methodology of time-driven activity based costing. Specifically, we recorded time spent by the patient in hospital facilities and with health care personnel. This duration was then weighted with the hourly cost of each health care professional and hospital space. The Mann-Whitney U test compared time and cost across the three sites. Overall cost at each site was divided by overall cost at the referent site (Main OR) to obtain a ratio of cost savings.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients (40 per site) were included in the analysis. Demographic and clinical factors were not significantly different between sites. No complication occurred with port removal at any site. Time of the entire care episode was significantly decreased in the Clinic (median 161min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 134-188min), compared to the Main OR (median 235min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 209-251min) or Satellite OR (median 228min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 211-245min). Overall cost was decreased by 25% (95% CI: 13-34%) at the Clinic and by 6% (95% CI: -2-11%) at the Satellite OR, compared to the Main OR (referent, P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

In our study, port removal in the Clinic Procedure Room was not associated with increased risk of negative outcomes. Shifting port removal from the Main OR to the Clinic may result in substantial cost savings.

Costing the outpatient rehabilitation services: time-driven activity-based costing approach

Background

Considering the importance of healthcare services costing in resource allocation, the aim of this study is to calculate the cost of rehabilitation services in an outpatient rehabilitation clinic in Tehran, Iran.

Methods

The data for this study were categorised as financial data and information about the process of rehabilitation services. The first category was extracted from the financial documents and the second was obtained by observation of patient flow and interviews with the clinic staff in 2016. The cost of rehabilitation services has been estimated using the time-driven activity-based costing approach.

Results

The findings show that the cost of physical occupational therapy in the Asma rehabilitation center was $18.79 per unit of service. This amount for speech therapy services was $17.23 to $19.40, taking into account the difference in the quality of the service delivered. The cost of mental health occupational therapy service was between $19.46 and $23.57. Comparing the cost of these services with the government’s tariffs makes it clear that there is a huge gap.

Conclusion

The limited number of patients referred to the center makes the cost of one unit of rehabilitation services much higher than the official tariffs. This is true for almost all similar institutions and makes the profitability of small rehabilitation institutions extremely unstable. Therefore, proper marketing for rehabilitation services by promoting patient referral links with larger healthcare centers and reallocation of resources to the formation of integrated rehabilitation complexes can play a significant role in their profitability.

Time-driven cost analysis of pediatric liver biopsy completed in pediatric sedation clinic and operating room

BACKGROUND

Pediatric ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous liver biopsy is a commonly performed procedure in children, and may be performed in a variety of clinical settings. However, there is little research on the relative costs associated with different sedation methods and locations.

OBJECTIVE

This study uses time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to identify relevant costs associated with different biopsy sedation techniques and locations to help inform providers and patients as well as guide value-conscious care. This study analyzes the direct costs associated with pediatric liver biopsy performed in an OR versus a dedicated pediatric sedation clinic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective review including data from consecutive procedures all completed by one board-certified interventional radiology physician between June 2021 and April 2024 was performed. Exclusion criteria included procedures with lack of timestamps (N = 3), and multiple procedures being completed causing a deviation from the standard pathway process (N = 19). Direct costs were calculated using cost capacity rates (CCR) and TDABC methodology. Propensity score matching between procedures performed in a sedation clinic versus an operating room (OR) was performed adjusting for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, and inpatient status, and subsequent matches were analyzed via paired t-test in SPSS.

RESULTS

A total of 111 procedures performed in the OR (N = 71) or sedation clinic (N = 40) were found and considered for analysis (N = 55 male, N = 56 female; mean age = 9.13, SD = 6.69 years). A technical success rate of 100% and a complication frequency of 5% (N = 3, mean = 13.67, SD = 2.05, all grade 1) were observed. Complication frequency was not statistically significant between the sedation clinic (N = 1) and OR (N = 2) groups (P = 0.28). After propensity matching, N = 58 matched procedures (OR, N = 29; sedation clinic, N = 29) were included. Pre-procedure times in the sedation clinic were shorter in duration (62.11 ± 42.25) than in the OR (111.96 ± 62.11, P < 0.001). Total procedure times were also shorter in duration in the sedation clinic (14.07 ± 4.99) than in the OR (21.76 ± 18.22, P = 0.03). In addition, procedures completed in the OR utilized additional anesthesia staff for an average of 72 min, contributing to overall cost. The average total included costs for matched liver biopsy procedures were $1,089.51 ± 384.34 in the sedation clinic and $2,801.36 ± 1,201.52 in the OR (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver biopsies completed in the sedation clinic were associated with significantly lower direct costs and were not associated with higher complication rates. These findings provide evidence for promoting pediatric sedation clinics as a safe and cost-effective location to perform liver biopsies in appropriate patients.