Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:39:24.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model for Estimating the Cost-Utility of Clinical Audit: The Example of Thrombolysis for Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Michael B. Robinson ,
Elizabeth Thompson  and
Nick A. Black
Michael B. Robinson
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Elizabeth Thompson
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Nick A. Black
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Economic evaluation of quality assurance programs is often called for but rarely reported. A study was designed to estimate the cost-utility of audit of thrombolysis in four U.K. district general hospitals, using the quality-adjusted life year. Although the results obtained were imprecise, the model used could be applied in future evaluations.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Winter 1998 , pp. 161 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Anonymous. Lotus 1-2-3 release 3.2. Slough: Lotus Development Corporation, 1992.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. The DH register of cost-effectiveness studies: A review of study content quality. York: University of York, 1995. CHE discussion paper no. 128.Google Scholar
3.Armitage, P., & Berry, G.Statistical methods in medical research, 2nd ed.Oxford: Black well, 1987.Google Scholar
4.Black, N.Quality assurance of medical care. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 1990, 12, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bowns, I. R., Gibson, M. A. J., Soper, J. B, & Woods, K. L.Efficient choice between drugs: Application to intravenous thrombolytic agents. Health Bulletin, 1992, 50, 125–31.Google Scholar
6.Cambridge Training and Development. Medical audit and the manager: Workbook. Bristol: NHS Training Directorate, 1993.Google Scholar
7.Gudex, C., & Kind, P.The QALY toolkit. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1988. CHE discussion paper no. 38.Google Scholar
8.Maynard, A.Developing the health care market. The Economic Journal, 1991, 101, 1277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.McDonald, C. J.Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectibility of man. New England Journal of Medicine, 1976, 295, 1351–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.NHS Management Executive. Clinical audit 1994/95 and beyond. Leeds: NHSME, 1994 Executive letter EL(94) 20.Google Scholar
11.Robinson, M. B., Thompson, E., & Black, N. A.Evaluation of the effectiveness of guidelines, audit and feedback: Improving the use of intra-venous thrombolysis in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 1996, 8, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Stross, J. K., & Bole, G. G.Evaluation of a continuing education program in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatology, 1980, 23, 846–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education. Medical audit: The educational implications. London: SCOPME, 1989.Google Scholar