Return on investment in blended advanced cardiac life support training compared to face-to-face training in Singapore

Abstract

Background: Internet adoption during the past decade has provided opportunities for innovation in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training. With pressure on budgets across health care systems, there is a need for more cost-effective solutions. Recently, traditional ACLS training has evolved from passive to active learning technologies. The objective of this study is to compare the cost, cost-savings and return on investment (ROI) of blended ACLS (B-ACLS) and face-to-face ACLS (F-ACLS) in Singapore. Methods: B-ACLS and F-ACLS courses are offered in two training institutes in Singapore. Direct and indirect costs of training were obtained from one of the training providers. ROI was computed using cost-savings over total cost if B-ACLS was used instead of F-ACLS. Results: The estimated annual cost to conduct B-ACLS and F-ACLS were S$43,467 and S$72,793, respectively. Discounted total cost of training over the life of the course (five years) was S$107,960 for B-ACLS and S$280,162 for F-ACLS. Annual productivity loss cost account for 52% and 23% of the costs among the F-ACLS and B-ACLS, respectively. B-ACLS yielded a 160% return on the money invested. There would be 61% savings over the life of the course if B-ACLS were to be used instead of F-ACLS. Conclusion: The B-ACLS course provides significant cost-savings to the provider and a positive ROI. B-ACLS should be more widely adopted as the preferred mode of ACLS training. As a start, physicians looking for reaccreditation of the ACLS training should be encouraged to take B-ACLS instead of F-ACLS.

Blended learning for accredited life support courses – A systematic review

“…Results from two studies showed that the blended learning course is superior to the traditional course in terms of cost reductions. 39. , 42.…”

“…A study from Singapore showed 61% of savings over 5 years if blended ALS courses were to be used instead of a traditional approach. 39 The estimated annual costs to conduct ALS courses via blended learning and traditionally were S$43,467 and S$72,793, respectively. Furthermore, a study of the RCUK e-ALS course reported total costs per participant as $438 for blended learning and $935 for traditional learning.…”

Methodology of Specialist Physicians Training: From Traditional to e-Learning

“…The transfer of learning to the clinic, impact on mortality, or costs have been analyzed. There is evidence that the mixed methodology provides significant savings for the provider [ 34 , 35 ]. In other research studies, it could be feasible to approach the comparison of didactic methodologies in ALS training contemplating the acquisition of non-technical skills.…”

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

“…The review included 8 studies. 368,[372][373][374][375][376][377][378] For the outcome of ALS knowledge (after the intervention), 2 studies found significantly higher scores in the blended-learning group, 372,378 whereas the remainder of the studies found no significant difference between the groups. 368,373,377 There was no significant difference between groups for 1 study at 7 months.…”

“…Two studies found a notable financial benefit for teaching ALS through a blended-learning approach. 374,377…”