Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of User-Testing of Health Professionals’ Guidelines to Reduce the Frequency of Intravenous Medicines Administration Errors by Nurses in the United Kingdom: A Probabilistic Model Based on Voriconazole Administration

Matthew D. Jones (), Bryony Dean Franklin, D. K. Raynor, Howard Thom, Margaret C. Watson and Rebecca Kandiyali
Additional contact information
Matthew D. Jones: University of Bath
Bryony Dean Franklin: UCL School of Pharmacy
D. K. Raynor: University of Leeds
Howard Thom: University of Bristol
Margaret C. Watson: University of Strathclyde
Rebecca Kandiyali: University of Bristol

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2022, vol. 20, issue 1, No 10, 104 pages

Abstract: Abstract Aim In the UK, injectable medicines are often prepared and administered by nurses following the Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG). Our earlier study confirmed a higher frequency of correct administration with user-tested versus standard IMG guidelines. This current study aimed to model the cost-effectiveness of user-testing. Methods The costs and cost-effectiveness of user-testing were explored by modifying an existing probabilistic decision-analytic model. The adapted model considered administration of intravenous voriconazole to hospital inpatients by nurses. It included 11 error types, their probability of detection and level of harm. Model inputs (including costs) were derived from our previous study and other published data. Monte Carlo simulation using 20,000 samples (sufficient for convergence) was performed with a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the 121 NHS trusts and health boards that use the IMG. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for the risk of a medication error and other sources of uncertainty. Results The net monetary benefit at £20,000/quality-adjusted life year was £3,190,064 (95% credible interval (CrI): −346,709 to 8,480,665), favouring user-testing with a 96% chance of cost-effectiveness. Incremental cost-savings were £240,943 (95% CrI 43,527–491,576), also favouring user-tested guidelines with a 99% chance of cost-saving. The total user testing cost was £6317 (95% CrI 6012–6627). These findings were robust to assumptions about a range of input parameters, but greater uncertainty was seen with a lower medication error risk. Conclusions User-testing of injectable medicines guidelines is a low-cost intervention that is highly likely to be cost-effective, especially for high-risk medicines.

Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00675-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00675-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00675-z

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().