Search results for: Antje Emmermann

Authors: Ayoade Adeyemi, Leo Nherera, Paul Trueman, Antje Emmermann

Abstract:

Background and objectives: Radiofrequency (RF) generated plasma chondroplasty is considered a promising treatment alternative to mechanical debridement (MD) with a shaver. The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing costs and outcomes following COBLATION chondroplasty versus mechanical debridement in patients with knee pain associated with a medial meniscus tear and idiopathic ICRS grade III focal lesion of the medial femoral condyle from a payer perspective. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed comparing economic and clinical outcomes between the two treatment options in German patients following knee chondroplasty. Revision rates based on the frequency of repeat arthroscopy, osteotomy and conversion to total knee replacement, reimbursement costs and outcomes data over a 4-year time horizon were extracted from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainties around model parameters. Threshold analysis determined the revision rate at which model results change. All costs were reported in 2016 euros, future costs were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Results: Over a 4 year period, COBLATION chondroplasty resulted in an overall net saving cost of €461 due to a lower revision rate of 14% compared to 48% with MD. Threshold analysis showed that both options were associated with comparable costs if COBLATION revision rate was assumed to increase up to 23%. The initial procedure costs for COBLATION were higher compared to MD and outcome scores were significantly improved at 1 and 4 years post-operation versus MD. Conclusion: The analysis shows that COBLATION chondroplasty is a cost-effective option compared to mechanical debridement in the treatment of patients with a medial meniscus tear and idiopathic ICRS grade III defect of the medial femoral condyle.

Keywords: COBLATION, cost-effectiveness, knee chondroplasty, mechanical debridement

Procedia PDF Downloads 356

Authors: Mareen Brosterhaus, Antje Hammer, Steffen Kalina, Stefan Grau, Anjali A. Roeth, Hany Ashmawy, Thomas Gross, Marcel Binnebosel, Wolfram T. Knoefel, Tanja Manser

Abstract:

Background: The identification of critical incidents in hospitals is an essential component of improving patient safety. To date, various methods have been used to measure and characterize such critical incidents. These methods are often viewed by physicians and nurses as external quality assurance, and this creates obstacles to the reporting events and the implementation of recommendations in practice. One way to overcome this problem is to use tools that directly involve staff in measuring indicators of quality and safety of care in the department. One such instrument is the global trigger tool (GTT), which helps physicians and nurses identify adverse events by systematically reviewing randomly selected patient records. Based on so-called ‘triggers’ (warning signals), indications of adverse events can be given. While the tool is already used internationally, its implementation in German hospitals has been very limited. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and potential of the global trigger tool for identifying adverse events in German hospitals. Methods: A total of 120 patient records were randomly selected from two surgical, and one neurosurgery, departments of three university hospitals in Germany over a period of two months per department between January and July, 2017. The records were reviewed using an adaptation of the German version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool to identify triggers and adverse event rates per 1000 patient days and per 100 admissions. The severity of adverse events was classified using the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. Results: A total of 53 adverse events were detected in the three departments. This corresponded to adverse event rates of 25.5-72.1 per 1000 patient-days and from 25.0 to 60.0 per 100 admissions across the three departments. 98.1% of identified adverse events were associated with non-permanent harm without (Category E–71.7%) or with (Category F–26.4%) the need for prolonged hospitalization. One adverse event (1.9%) was associated with potentially permanent harm to the patient. We also identified practical challenges in the implementation of the tool, such as the need for adaptation of the global trigger tool to the respective department. Conclusions: The global trigger tool is feasible and an effective instrument for quality measurement when adapted to the departmental specifics. Based on our experience, we recommend a continuous use of the tool thereby directly involving clinicians in quality improvement.

Keywords: adverse events, global trigger tool, patient safety, record review

Procedia PDF Downloads 209