The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with a proximal humerus fracture, using time-driven activity based costing (TDABC), and to compare treatment costs with reimbursement under the Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs). TDABC analysis based on the principles outlined by Kaplan and a clinical pathway that has previously been validated for this institution was used. Staffing cost, consumables, implants, and overheads were updated to reflect 2019/2020 costs. This was compared with the HRG reimbursements.Aims
Methods
The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical and non-surgical management of fractures of the proximal humerus, and to determine whether further analyses based on complexity of fracture, or the type of surgical intervention, produced disparate findings on patient outcomes. A systematic review of the literature was performed identifying all RCTs that compared surgical and non-surgical management of fractures of the proximal humerus. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes was performed where possible. Subgroup analysis based on the type of fracture, and a sensitivity analysis based on the type of surgical intervention, were also performed.Objectives
Methods
The aims of this study were to estimate the cost of surgical
treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus using a micro-costing
methodology, contrast this cost with the national reimbursement
tariff and establish the major determinants of cost. A detailed inpatient treatment pathway was constructed using
semi-structured interviews with 32 members of hospital staff. Its
content validity was established through a Delphi panel evaluation.
Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC)
and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the determinants
of costAims
Methods
We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis
in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated
methodological standards in their development. A structured review
was performed for guidelines that were published between January
2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined
computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify
the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate
the quality of the guidelines in the study. Seven international and national guidelines were identified.
The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines
was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range
(IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%,
IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’
(median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’
(median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores. These findings reveal that although the overall methodological
quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery
is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’
and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of
the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve
the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on
aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.
