Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Perioper Med (Lond). 2012 Jun 27;1:3. doi: 10.1186/2047-0525-1-3. eCollection 2012.
Outpatient anesthesia clinics are well established in North America, Europe and Australia, but few economic evaluations have been published. The Perioperative Systems in Hong Kong are best described as a hybrid model of the new and old systems of surgical care. In this matched cohort study, we compared the costs and effects of an outpatient anesthesia clinic (OPAC) with the conventional system of admitting patients to the ward a day before surgery for their pre-anesthesia consultation. A second objective of the study was to determine the patient's median Willingness To Pay (WTP) value for an OPAC.
A total of 352 patients were matched (1:1) on their elective surgical procedure to either the clinic group or to the conventional group. The primary outcome was quality of recovery score and overall perioperative treatment cost (US$). To detect a difference in the joint cost-effect relationship between groups, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was drawn. A modified Poisson regression model was used to examine the factors associated with patients willing to pay more than the median WTP value for an OPAC.
The quality of recovery scores on the first day after surgery between the clinic and conventional groups were similar (mean difference, -0.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.6 to 0.3; P = 0.57). Although the preoperative costs were less in the clinic group (mean difference, -$463, 95% CI, -$648 to -$278 per patient; P <0.001), the total perioperative cost was similar between groups (mean difference, -$172; 95% CI, -$684 to $340 per patient; P = 0.51). The CEAC showed that we could not be 95% confident that the clinic was cost-effective. Compared to the conventional group, clinic patients were three times more likely to prefer OPAC care (relative risk (RR) 2.75, 95% CI, 2.13 to 3.55; P <0.001) and pay more than the median WTP (US$13) for a clinic consultation (RR 3.27, 95% CI, 2.32 to 4.64; P <0.001).
There is uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of an OPAC in the Hong Kong setting. Most clinic patients were willing to pay a small amount for an anesthesia clinic consultation.
门诊麻醉诊所已在北美、欧洲和澳大利亚建立,但发表的经济评估很少。香港的围手术期系统可以说是新的和旧的手术护理系统的混合模式。在这项匹配队列研究中,我们比较了门诊麻醉诊所(OPAC)与传统的患者在手术前一天住院接受术前咨询的系统的成本和效果。研究的第二个目的是确定患者对 OPAC 的中位支付意愿(WTP)值。
共 352 名择期手术患者按手术类型(1:1)与诊所组或常规组相匹配。主要结局是术后第一天的恢复质量评分和围手术期总治疗费用(美元)。为了检测两组之间联合成本效益关系的差异,绘制了成本效益可接受性曲线(CEAC)。采用修正泊松回归模型分析与患者愿意支付 OPAC 中位数以上 WTP 值相关的因素。
手术后第一天,诊所组和常规组的恢复质量评分相似(平均差异,-0.1;95%置信区间(CI),-0.6 至 0.3;P=0.57)。虽然诊所组的术前费用较低(平均差异,-463 美元,95%CI,-648 至-278 美元/人;P<0.001),但两组的总围手术期费用相似(平均差异,-172 美元,95%CI,-684 至-340 美元/人;P=0.51)。CEAC 表明,我们无法有 95%的把握认为诊所是具有成本效益的。与常规组相比,诊所患者更有可能选择 OPAC 护理(相对风险(RR)2.75,95%CI,2.13 至 3.55;P<0.001),并愿意支付 OPAC 咨询的中位数 WTP(13 美元)以上(RR 3.27,95%CI,2.32 至 4.64;P<0.001)。
在香港,门诊麻醉诊所的成本效益存在不确定性。大多数诊所患者愿意为麻醉诊所咨询支付少量费用。