Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study

• Published in: BMC health services research Vol. 24; no. 1; p. 479
• Main Authors: Conombo, Blanchard, Guertin, Jason R, Hoch, Jeffrey S, Grimshaw, Jeremy, Bérubé, Mélanie, Malo, Christian, Berthelot, Simon, Lauzier, François, Stelfox, Henry T, Turgeon, Alexis F, Archambault, Patrick, Belcaid, Amina, Moore, Lynne
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 18.04.2024; BMC
• Subjects: Activity based costing; Audit and feedback; Committees; Cost analysis; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Critical care; Effectiveness studies; Hospitals; Injury; Intervention; Low-value care; Quality improvement; Surgeons; Systematic review; Trauma; Trauma care; United States > US; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Low-value care; Audit and feedback; Injury
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10969-2
• ISSN: 1472-6963

Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.