Alexander D, Kelly B
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1991 Apr;30(4 Suppl):57-9; discussion 60. doi: 10.1177/0009922891030004S17.
This study was designed to see if tympanic thermometry might be more cost effective than cheaper more traditional methods of thermometry when office staff time saved is taken into account. There were 224 patients enrolled from three private pediatric practices. Patients were alternately assigned to have their temperature taken with either a tympanic thermometer or with a rectal or oral thermometer depending on the patient's age. For each child enrolled in the study a nurse was asked to time the temperature taking process. Items included in the cost analysis: a) thermometer costs; b) disposable supply costs; c) personnel costs; d) equipment service costs. The mean duration of temperature taking was 35.2 seconds using tympanic thermometers, 73.4 seconds using electronic predictive thermometers, and 247.2 seconds using glass thermometers. In practices taking an average of 10 temperatures per day, tympanic thermometry saved $2,316/year when compared to glass thermometers and $442/year when compared to electronic predictive thermometers. The data presented in this study show that when nursing time is taken into account, tympanic thermometry is less expensive to perform than traditional methods of thermometry despite the initial higher cost of the thermometer.
本研究旨在探讨在考虑节省办公室工作人员时间的情况下，鼓膜测温法是否比更便宜的传统测温方法更具成本效益。研究从三家私立儿科诊所招募了224名患者。根据患者年龄，将患者交替分配使用鼓膜温度计或直肠或口腔温度计测量体温。对于参与研究的每个孩子，要求一名护士记录测量体温的过程。成本分析包括以下项目：a）温度计成本；b）一次性用品成本；c）人员成本；d）设备服务成本。使用鼓膜温度计测量体温的平均持续时间为35.2秒，使用电子预测温度计为73.4秒，使用玻璃温度计为247.2秒。在平均每天测量10次体温的诊所中，与玻璃温度计相比，鼓膜测温法每年节省2316美元，与电子预测温度计相比每年节省442美元。本研究提供的数据表明，在考虑护理时间的情况下，尽管鼓膜温度计的初始成本较高，但与传统测温方法相比，其执行成本更低。
