Change to costs and lengths of stay in the emergency department and the Brisbane protocol: an observational study. Issue 2 (25th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cheng, Qinglu; Greenslade, Jaimi H; Parsonage, William A; Barnett, Adrian G; Merollini, Katharina; Graves, Nicholas; Peacock, W Frank; Cullen, Louise
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 6:Issue 2(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-02-25
• Subjects: emergency department -- chest pain -- acute coronary syndrome; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009746
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To compare health service cost and length of stay between a traditional and an accelerated diagnostic approach to assess acute coronary syndromes (ACS) among patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) of a large tertiary hospital in Australia. Design, setting and participants: This historically controlled study analysed data collected from two independent patient cohorts presenting to the ED with potential ACS. The first cohort of 938 patients was recruited in 2008–2010, and these patients were assessed using the traditional diagnostic approach detailed in the national guideline. The second cohort of 921 patients was recruited in 2011–2013 and was assessed with the accelerated diagnostic approach named the Brisbane protocol. The Brisbane protocol applied early serial troponin testing for patients at 0 and 2 h after presentation to ED, in comparison with 0 and 6 h testing in traditional assessment process. The Brisbane protocol also defined a low-risk group of patients in whom no objective testing was performed. A decision tree model was used to compare the expected cost and length of stay in hospital between two approaches. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to account for model uncertainty. Results: Compared with the traditional diagnostic approach, the Brisbane protocol was associated with reduced expected cost of $1229 (95% CI −$1266 to $5122) and reduced expected length of stay of 26 h (95% CI −14 to 136 h). The Brisbane protocol allowed physicians to discharge a higher proportion of low-risk and intermediate-risk patients from ED within 4 h (72% vs 51%). Results from sensitivity analysis suggested the Brisbane protocol had a high chance of being cost-saving and time-saving. Conclusions: This study provides some evidence of cost savings from a decision to adopt the Brisbane protocol. Benefits would arise for the hospital and for patients and their families.