Comparison of cost and outcome of care in patients with low back pain who are managed by physicians or physical therapists in private practice

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were differences in the cost and outcome of care in patients with low back pain who were managed by physicians or physical therapists in private practice in the state of Arizona. A secondary purpose was to describe the current status of private practice physical therapy clinicians who treat patients with low back pain.^ A Survey on Practice was mailed to 194 physical therapists who were listed by the American Physical Therapy Association as being in private practice in Arizona. Eighty-three percent of the surveys were returned after three attempts. Of those which were returned, 72 were complete and included in the analysis.^ The 72 practices were screened to determine those eligible for the second phase of the study. Those eligible for the second phase numbered 52 clinics. Twenty-six practices agreed to participate; however, only 21 did participate. Clinics which participated were sent packets of information which were to be kept on each patient seen with a complaint of low back pain during a three month period. Packets contained a patient-oriented survey on functional activity to be completed before and after the physical therapy course of treatment, as well as a log which was completed by the physical therapist on the type of care given to the patient and an assessment of the outcome of treatment. The patient was asked to fill out a satisfaction survey relative to the care received from the physical therapist and physician, if applicable.^ Although 259 patients were entered into the study, 210 patient logs were available for analysis. Results indicated that generally, there was no difference in cost or outcome as measured by the final functional score, change between the initial and final functional scores, or the therapist-rated outcome between the patients who were managed by physicians or physical therapists when controlling for age and length of time the patient was experiencing pain. Patients were more satisfied with care received from physical therapists as compared to physicians. Age and length of pain were good predictors of the type of referral patients received according to a logistic regression procedure. The initial disability score (IRS) and the time spent in the facility predicted therapist-rated outcome, a good or poor final disability score (FRS), and a good or poor change score. In addition, age predicted FRS and change scores. The time that the therapist spent in direct contact with the patient also predicted the change score.^ These findings of no difference in the cost and outcome of care were discussed as they relate to the practice of medicine and physical therapy. ^

Cost analysis of opt-in consent procedures for the Texas statewide immunization information system, ImmTrac

Background. Childhood immunization programs have dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with vaccine-preventable diseases. Proper documentation of immunizations that have been administered is essential to prevent duplicate immunization of children. To help improve documentation, immunization information systems (IISs) have been developed. IISs are comprehensive repositories of immunization information for children residing within a geographic region. The two models for participation in an IIS are voluntary inclusion, or "opt-in," and voluntary exclusion, or "opt-out." In an opt-in system, consent must be obtained for each participant, conversely, in an opt-out IIS, all children are included unless procedures to exclude the child are completed. Consent requirements for participation vary by state; the Texas IIS, ImmTrac, is an opt-in system.^ Objectives. The specific objectives are to: (1) Evaluate the variance among the time and costs associated with collecting ImmTrac consent at public and private birthing hospitals in the Greater Houston area; (2) Estimate the total costs associated with collecting ImmTrac consent at selected public and private birthing hospitals in the Greater Houston area; (3) Describe the alternative opt-out process for collecting ImmTrac consent at birth and discuss the associated cost savings relative to an opt-in system.^ Methods. Existing time-motion studies (n=281) conducted between October, 2006 and August, 2007 at 8 birthing hospitals in the Greater Houston area were used to assess the time and costs associated with obtaining ImmTrac consent at birth. All data analyzed are deidentified and contain no personal information. Variations in time and costs at each location were assessed and total costs per child and costs per year were estimated. The cost of an alternative opt-out system was also calculated.^ Results. The median time required by birth registrars to complete consent procedures varied from 72-285 seconds per child. The annual costs associated with obtaining consent for 388,285 newborns in ImmTrac's opt-in consent process were estimated at $702,000. The corresponding costs of the proposed opt-out system were estimated to total $194,000 per year. ^ Conclusions. Substantial variation in the time and costs associated with completion of ImmTrac consent procedures were observed. Changing to an opt-out system for participation could represent significant cost savings. ^

Translating knowledge into action: Information needs of decision-makers in healthcare

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the healthcare information needs of decision-makers in a local US healthcare setting in efforts to promote the translation of knowledge into action. The focus was on the perceptions and preferences of decision-makers regarding usable information in making decisions as to identify strategies to maximize the contribution of healthcare findings to policy and practice. Methods: This study utilized a qualitative data collection and analysis strategy. Data was collected via open-ended key-informant interviews from a sample of 37 public and private-sector healthcare decision-makers in the Houston/Harris County safety net. The sample was comprised of high-level decision-makers, including legislators, executive managers, service providers, and healthcare funders. Decision-makers were asked to identify the types of information, the level of collaboration with outside agencies, useful attributes of information, and the sources, formats/styles, and modes of information preferred in making important decisions and the basis for their preferences. Results: Decision-makers report acquiring information, categorizing information as usable knowledge, and selecting information for use based on the application of four cross-cutting thought processes or cognitive frameworks. In order of apparent preference, these are time orientation, followed by information seeking directionality, selection of validation processes, and centrality of credibility/reliability. In applying the frameworks, decision-makers are influenced by numerous factors associated with their perceptions of the utility of information and the importance of collaboration with outside agencies in making decisions as well as professional and organizational characteristics. Conclusion: An approach based on the elucidated cognitive framework may be valuable in identifying the reported contextual determinants of information use by decision-makers in US healthcare settings. Such an approach can facilitate active producer/user collaborations and promote the production of mutually valued, comprehensible, and usable findings leading to sustainable knowledge translation efforts long-term.^