Biomedical subjects

D B Nash

Publications and source records attributed to D B Nash.

93 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Point-of-care versus central laboratory testing: an economic analysis in an academic medical center.

A cost-effectiveness study was conducted to determine time and labor costs for point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory testing. A prospective, observational time and motion study was carried out at a teaching hospital located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The cohort consisted of 210 patients presenting to the emergency department who were triaged at the urgent or emergent level during a 4-week period. Patients who had blood drawn for a seven-chemistry profile (Chem-7), which includes analysis of sodium, potassium, chloride, carbon dioxide, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, and creatinine, or for cell blood count (CBC) tests as part of regular care, also had an additional split sample drawn for POC analysis of sodium, potassium, chloride, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, and/or hematocrit. Blood drawn for POC analysis did not require additional needlestick(s), nor did it alter regular care procedures. Physicians and all emergency department staff participating in the care of the patients were blinded to POC test results. Main outcome measures included test turn-around time (TAT), physician determination of impact of rapid TAT and laboratory values on therapeutic approach, and cost per test for POC versus central laboratory testing. POC TAT was a mean of 8 minutes (time from blood drawn to results shown on the POC device display). Central laboratory TAT was a mean of 59 minutes (time from blood drawn to entry of results into mainframe computer). Therapeutic TAT was a mean of 1 hour and 25 minutes (time from blood drawn to analysis in central laboratory, to when the physician viewed test results). After therapeutic course of care was decided for the patient, physicians reported that POC testing, independent of other rate-limiting steps, would have resulted in earlier therapeutic action for 40 of 210 (19.0%) patients. The cost per test for Chem-7 and CBC tests was $11.14 and $9.48, respectively. The cost per test for POC analysis ranged from $14.37 to $16.67, depending on the POC test volume (estimated volume based on 20% to 50% of emergency department patients that had either Chem-7 or CBC test done applied over the useful life of the POC testing equipment) and the personnel (nurse or emergency department technician) who performed the test. With an increasing volume of POC tests performed per unit time, costs for POC testing would be reduced substantially. POC test costs are volume dependent under current reimbursement mechanisms for emergency department patient care services, for example, fee-for-service payment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Monoclonal antibody therapy for gram-negative sepsis: principles, applications, and controversies.

Gram-negative sepsis is a common event in hospitalized patients and is a leading cause of death in the United States. Endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS), a component of the cell wall of gram-negative microorganisms, is responsible for the cascade of events leading to the sepsis syndrome consisting of fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, and evidence of organ hypoperfusion. The lipid A region of endotoxin produces most of these biologic and toxic effects. Monoclonal IgM antibodies directed against the lipid A portion of endotoxin (anti-LPS MoAb) have been developed for the treatment of gram-negative sepsis. Results of two large-scale clinical trials suggest that these antibodies offer clinically and statistically significant reductions in mortality by a factor of about one-third. However, in both trials, this apparent beneficial effect was limited to particular subsets of patients, and no overall benefit was seen. These considerations, in addition to the likely high cost of the agents, pose questions about their ultimate use in the treatment of patients with gram-negative sepsis. Nevertheless, the logic of the approach, the demonstration of efficacy in disease models, and the advances in modern techniques of molecular biology all suggest that these or other closely related products will play a significant role in the treatment of this disorder.

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Technology assessment in healthcare: a review and description of a "best practice" technology assessment process.

BACKGROUND: Technology assessment has become a rapidly growing component of the healthcare system. It has assumed a functional role in operational settings and is rapidly impacting decisions involving purchasing, coverage, and reimbursement. This review is intended to assist the healthcare decision maker in considering the application of technology assessment in healthcare, so as to maximize the efficiency of future purchasing decisions. METHODS: This "best practice" was synthesized after identifying key institutions performing technology assessment in healthcare and analyzing their working processes, including literature review, consensus panel discussions, and expert opinion. RESULTS: We describe this best practice on a reiterative loop that consists of five processes: awareness, strategic appropriateness, analysis versus need, acquisition and implementation, and reassessment. Typical barriers to adoption of technology assessment are also identified and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests a common terminology for the core processes involved in technology assessment, thereby facilitating a more uniform understanding among the different components of the healthcare system (i.e., payer, provider, and society) while recognizing their different perspectives.

Academies and Institutes↗