A cost-utility analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education.
Summary of "A cost-utility analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education."
Aims and objectives.â€‚ This study presents a cost-utility analysis that compared medium- vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The analysis sought to determine whether the extra costs associated with high-fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Background.â€‚ Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students' learning and engagement. A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. Method.â€‚ Costs associated with the use of medium- and high-fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total cost for each. A cost-utility analysis using multiattribute utility function was then conducted to combine costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi-experimental study to arrive at an overall cost utility. Results.â€‚ The cost analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1Â·21 (US$ 1Â·14; â‚¬0Â·85) using medium-fidelity as compared with $AU6Â·28 (US$6Â·17; â‚¬4Â·40) for high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. Conclusion.â€‚ Based on the results of the cost-utility analysis, medium-fidelity manikins are more cost effective requiring one-fifth of the cost of high-fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Relevance to clinical practice.â€‚ It is important that decision-makers have an economic analysis that considers both the costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular cost.
Authors: Samuel Lapkin, BN, RN, PhD Candidate, Research Assistant and Academic, School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Newcastle; Tracy Levett-Jones, BN, PhD, RN, MEd & Work, DipAppSc(Nursing), Deputy Head of School (Teaching and Learning), Sc
This article was published in the following journal.
Name: Journal of clinical nursing
- PubMed Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21917033
- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03843.x
Study Design. Within-study cost-utility analysis.Objectives. To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within r...
The aim of cost-utility analysis is to support decision making in healthcare by providing a standardised mechanism for comparing resource use and health outcomes across programmes of work. The focus o...
High-fidelity patient simulators in team training are becoming popular, though research showing benefits of the training process compared to low-fidelity models is rare. We explored in situ training f...
Retrospective 1-year cost-utility analysis.
The aim of this grounded theory study was to explain the nature of presence among nursing students participating in scenario-based high fidelity human patient simulation. Data were derived from observ...
To study the cost utility analysis of Erythropoietin (EPO) for maintaining the different hemoglobin (Hb) target levels in anemic hemodialysis patient in routine clinical practice.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the use of high-fidelity simulation in health care education is an effective training and evaluation model.
The purpose of this study is to twofold. We wish to introduce a new patient-descriptive parameter, the 'Fidelity Coefficient', and use it to assess and compare the overview of patient's me...
Whether teaching leadership with a short debriefing has a positive influence on the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation remains largely unknown. The investigators will assess the ...
The objective of this pharmacoeconomics (PE) study is to evaluate the cost- effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis of IRESSAÂ® as first line treatment of NSCLC from the society p...
Medical and Biotech [MESH] Definitions
A method of comparing the cost of a program with its expected benefits in dollars (or other currency). The benefit-to-cost ratio is a measure of total return expected per unit of money spent. This analysis generally excludes consideration of factors that are not measured ultimately in economic terms. Cost effectiveness compares alternative ways to achieve a specific set of results.
The personal cost of acute or chronic disease. The cost to the patient may be an economic, social, or psychological cost or personal loss to self, family, or immediate community. The cost of illness may be reflected in absenteeism, productivity, response to treatment, peace of mind, QUALITY OF LIFE, etc. It differs from HEALTH CARE COSTS, meaning the societal cost of providing services related to the delivery of health care, rather than personal impact on individuals.
Absolute, comparative, or differential costs pertaining to services, institutions, resources, etc., or the analysis and study of these costs.
The assignment, to each of several particular cost-centers, of an equitable proportion of the costs of activities that serve all of them. Cost-center usually refers to institutional departments or services.
Chemical analysis based on the phenomenon whereby light, passing through a medium with dispersed particles of a different refractive index from that of the medium, is attenuated in intensity by scattering. In turbidimetry, the intensity of light transmitted through the medium, the unscattered light, is measured. In nephelometry, the intensity of the scattered light is measured, usually, but not necessarily, at right angles to the incident light beam.