Quick diagnosis units: predictors of time to diagnosis and costs

Montori-Palacín, Elisabet; Ramon, Jordi; Compta, Yaroslau; Insa, Monica; Prieto-González, Sergio; Carrasco-Miserachs, Ignasi; Vidal-Serra, Rafel X; Altes-Capella, Jordi; López‐Soto, Alfons; Bosch, Xavier

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000021241

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients from the Tertiary Unit were significantly more likely than those from the Secondary Unit to be referred from the emergency department (61.2 vs. 17.0%, respectively;P <0.0001), to be referred with symptoms suggestive of cancer, and to have a final diagnosis of malignancy. While the ratio of successive/first visits in the Tertiary Unit was significantly higher than that in the secondary center unit (3.098 ± 0.6584 vs. 2.123 ± 0.2171, respectively;P =0.0064), the mean time to diagnosis was significantly shorter in the former (8 [IQR,(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) vs. 12 [1-28], respectively;P <0.0001) (Table 1).…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The structure, indications for referral, and operating procedures of these units have been reported previously [6,10,14,15]. Briefly, they work as ambulatory clinics evaluating patients with suspected severe disorders whose general physical condition is acceptable enough to enable them to go to hospital for investigations and appointments, then back to home.…”

Section: Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The unit is open 5 days a week [11,12]. In contrast, the unit of the secondary hospital is staffed with two part-time general internists as well as administrative personnel [10,15].…”

Section: Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although limited, available reported data suggest that the quick diagnosis unit approach may be costeffective. Studies evaluating the cost outcomes of these units have been reported as non-comparative cost analyses of single units [9,10] or with the standpoint of comparing the costs of these patients with those of inpatients hospitalized for the same condition [11][12][13]. These investigations have been valuable for the objective assessment of the actual costs incurred by quick diagnosis units of single centers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in a hospital ambulatory setting: Comparative analysis by micro‐costing of quick diagnosis clinics

Bosch¹,

Montori

Peñas

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives Quick diagnosis units, a paradigmatic innovative model of hospital ambulatory medicine in Spain, are suggested to be cost-effective. While former studies have been conducted as cost analyses of single units or comparative analyses between these patients and inpatients hospitalized for the same condition, how cost outcomes compare between units of different hospitals and different levels of complexity is unknown. Using micro-costing, the costs of patients managed at quick diagnosis units from a tertiary and a secondary hospital were compared. Methods The study population included 407 patients from each unit who were evaluated over 8 years. Through a bottom-up approach, we analyzed all single cost components that contributed to the mean total cost per patient in both units. Results Patients from the tertiary hospital unit were more likely than those from the secondary hospital to be referred for cancer suggestive symptoms, to have a diagnosis of cancer, and to be referred from the emergency department. Although the ratio of successive/first visits was 3.098 ± 0.6584 in the tertiary vs. 2.123 ± 0.2171 in the secondary hospital unit (P=0.0064), the time to diagnosis was significantly longer in the latter. With a similar mean cost per visit, the cost per patient was \euro577.5 ± \euro219.6 in the tertiary vs. \euro394.7 ± \euro92.58 in the secondary hospital unit (P=0.0559). Personnel and indirect costs including both the monetary estimate and their percent contribution to the mean cost per patient accounted for the main differences between units. Conclusion The ratio of successive/first visits was the main driver of cost differences. A greater complexity of patients from the unit of the tertiary hospital and the inherent characteristics of this type of hospital including volume of patients and staff and staff time justified the differences in the ratio of visits and the cost outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The unit is open 5 days a week [11,12]. In contrast, the unit of the secondary hospital is staffed with two part-time general internists as well as administrative personnel [10,15].…”

Section: Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in a hospital ambulatory setting: Comparative analysis by micro‐costing of quick diagnosis clinics

Bosch¹,

Montori

Peñas

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comparative cost analysis between two quick diagnosis units of different levels of complexity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare by micro-costing the costs incurred by quick diagnosis units of tertiary and second-level hospitals. Patients & methods: We included 407 patients from a tertiary and secondary hospital unit. A bottom-up approach was applied. Results: Cost per patient was €577.5 ± 219.6 in the tertiary versus €394.7 ± 92.58 in the secondary unit (p = 0.0559). Mean number of visits and ratio of successive/first visits were significantly higher in the former (3.098 and 2.07 vs 2.123 and 1.12, respectively). Personnel and indirect costs including their percent contribution to overall costs accounted for the main differences. Conclusion: A greater volume of appointments, number of staff and staff time and a greater complexity of patients from the tertiary hospital unit justified the differences in cost outcomes.

show abstract

Quick diagnosis units: predictors of time to diagnosis and costs

Abstract: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in a hospital ambulatory setting: Comparative analysis by micro‐costing of quick diagnosis clinics

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in a hospital ambulatory setting: Comparative analysis by micro‐costing of quick diagnosis clinics

A comparative cost analysis between two quick diagnosis units of different levels of complexity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About