No abstract

Aims: Because logistical and financial obstacles impede using large prospective cohort studies, surveillance decisions in occupational settings must often be made without evidence of relative benefits and costs. Using the example of isocyanate induced asthma, the most commonly reported immune mediated occupational asthma, the authors developed a model based approach to evaluate the costs and benefits of surveillance from both an employer and a societal perspective. Methods: The authors used a mathematical simulation model of isocyanate asthma to compare annual surveillance to passive case finding. Outcome measures included symptom free days (SFD), quality adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, productivity losses, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (CER), measured from the employer and the societal perspectives. Input data were obtained from a variety of published sources. Results: For 100 000 exposed workers, surveillance resulted in 683 fewer cases of disability over 10 years. Surveillance conferred benefits at an incremental cost of $24,000/QALY (employer perspective; $13.33/SFD) and was cost saving from the societal perspective. Results were sensitive to assumptions about sensitisation rate, removal rates, and time to diagnosis, but not to assumptions about therapy costs and disability rates. Conclusions: Baseline results placed the CER for surveillance for isocyanate asthma within the acceptable range. Costs from the societal and employer perspective differed substantially with a more attractive CER from the societal perspective, suggesting opportunities for employer/societal cost sharing. The analysis demonstrates the value of a model based approach to evaluate the cost effectiveness of surveillance programmes for isocyanate asthma, and to inform shared decision making among clinicians, patients, employers, and society. Such a modeling approach may be applicable to surveillance programmes for other work related conditions.

BackgroundThe vast majority of the healthcare problems burdening our society today are caused by disease-promoting lifestyles (e.g., physical inactivity and unhealthy eating). Physicians report poor training and lack of confidence in counseling patients on lifestyle changes.ObjectiveTo evaluate a new curriculum and rotation in lifestyle medicine for preventive medicine residents.MethodsTraining included didactics (six sessions/year), distance learning, educational conferences, and newly developed lifestyle medicine rotations at the Institute of Lifestyle Medicine, the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, and the Integrative Medicine Center. We used a number of tools to assess residents’ progress including Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), self-assessments, and logs of personal health habits.ResultsA total of 20 residents participated in the lifestyle medicine training between 2010 and 2013. There was a 15% increase in residents’ discussions of lifestyle issues with their patients based on their baseline and follow-up surveys. The performance of preventive medicine residents on OSCEs increased each year they were in the program (average OSCE score: PGY1 73%, PGY2 83%, PGY3 87%, and PGY4 91%, p=0.01). Our internal medicine and preliminary residents served as a control, since they did participate in didactics but not in lifestyle medicine rotations. Internal medicine and preliminary residents who completed the same OSCEs had a slightly lower average score (76%) compared with plural for resident, preventive medicine residents (80%). However, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.11).ConclusionIncorporating the lifestyle medicine curriculum is feasible for preventive medicine training allowing residents to improve their health behavior change discussions with patients as well as their own personal health habits.

IRs did not decrease LOS in a telemetry ward. Whereas a potential benefit of IRs in other settings cannot be ruled out, this study emphasizes the importance of rigorous testing of strategies to enhance the quality or reduce the costs of inpatient care.