Community water fluoridation has long been recognized as an effective public health intervention in the prevention of dental caries. The recently documented secular decline in dental caries, however, presents for policy makers the challenge of appropriately allocating limited health care resources between a variety of health care programs. Appropriate economic assessment of these alternatives becomes critical for rational distribution of such resources. Cost‐benefit and cost‐effectiveness analyses are techniques that, when used correctly, can guide policy makers facing such decisions. This paper reviews and critiques the published literature assessing the cost effectiveness and cost benefit of community water fluoridation using criteria developed for economic evaluation. Eight papers met the criteria for inclusion in the present study. In general, the articles failed to incorporate the declining prevalence of dental caries into their analyses and to fully document costs associated with water fluoridation. Treatment savings from dental care averted secondary to water fluoridation were not appropriately incorporated into the cost‐effectiveness analyses, thereby overestimating the marginal cost associated with fluoridation. Specification of outcome measures to assess the consequences of water fluoridation failed to incorporate the dynamic nature of dental disease. Suggestions for improving the generalizability and usefulness of future cost‐benefit and cost‐effectiveness analyses are made.
BACKGROUND: It is not known whether delivering inpatient care earlier to patients boarding in the emergency department (ED) by a hospitalist-led team can decrease length of stay (LOS).
OBJECTIVE: To study the association between care provided by a hospital medicine ED Boarder (EDB) service and LOS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018) conducted at a single, large, urban academic medical center. Patients admitted to general medicine services from the ED were included. EDB patients were defined as those waiting for more than two hours for an inpatient bed. Patients were categorized as covered EDB, noncovered EDB, or nonboarder.
INTERVENTION: The hospital medicine team provided continuous care to covered EDB patients waiting for an inpatient bed.
PRIMARY OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was median hospital LOS defined as the time period from ED arrival to hospital departure. Secondary outcomes included ED LOS and 30-day ED readmission rate.
RESULTS: There were 8,776 covered EDB, 5,866 noncovered EDB, and 2,026 nonboarder patients. The EDB service covered 59.9% of eligible patients and 62.9% of total boarding hours. Median hospital LOS was 4.76 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.90-7.22) days for nonboarders, 4.92 (IQR 3.00-8.03) days for covered EDB patients, and 5.11 (IQR 3.16-8.34) days for noncovered EDB (P < .001). Median ED LOS for nonboarders was 5.6 (IQR 4.2-7.5) hours, 20.7 (IQR 15.8-24.9) hours for covered EDB, and 10.1 (IQR 7.9-13.8) hours for noncovered EDB (P < .001). There was no difference in 30-day ED readmission rates.
CONCLUSION: Admitted patients who were not boarders had the shortest LOS. Among boarded patients, coverage by a hospital medicine-led EDB service was associated with a reduced hospital LOS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.