IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v14y2016i4d10.1007_s40258-016-0246-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Efficiency of Increasing the Capacity of Physiotherapy Screening Clinics or Traditional Medical Services to Address Unmet Demand in Orthopaedic Outpatients: A Practical Application of Discrete Event Simulation with Dynamic Queuing

Author

Listed:
  • L. Standfield

    (Griffith University)

  • T. Comans

    (Griffith University
    Metro North Hospital and Health Service)

  • M. Raymer

    (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service)

  • S. O’Leary

    (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service
    University of Queensland)

  • N. Moretto

    (Griffith University)

  • P. Scuffham

    (Griffith University)

Abstract

Background Hospital outpatient orthopaedic services traditionally rely on medical specialists to assess all new patients to determine appropriate care. This has resulted in significant delays in service provision. In response, Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinics and Multidisciplinary Services (OPSC) have been introduced to assess and co-ordinate care for semi- and non-urgent patients. Objectives To compare the efficiency of delivering increased semi- and non-urgent orthopaedic outpatient services through: (1) additional OPSC services; (2) additional traditional orthopaedic medical services with added surgical resources (TOMS + Surg); or (3) additional TOMS without added surgical resources (TOMS − Surg). Methods A cost-utility analysis using discrete event simulation (DES) with dynamic queuing (DQ) was used to predict the cost effectiveness, throughput, queuing times, and resource utilisation, associated with introducing additional OPSC or TOMS ± Surg versus usual care. Results The introduction of additional OPSC or TOMS (±surgery) would be considered cost effective in Australia. However, OPSC was the most cost-effective option. Increasing the capacity of current OPSC services is an efficient way to improve patient throughput and waiting times without exceeding current surgical resources. An OPSC capacity increase of ~100 patients per month appears cost effective (A$8546 per quality-adjusted life-year) and results in a high level of OPSC utilisation (98 %). Conclusion Increasing OPSC capacity to manage semi- and non-urgent patients would be cost effective, improve throughput, and reduce waiting times without exceeding current surgical resources. Unlike Markov cohort modelling, microsimulation, or DES without DQ, employing DES-DQ in situations where capacity constraints predominate provides valuable additional information beyond cost effectiveness to guide resource allocation decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Standfield & T. Comans & M. Raymer & S. O’Leary & N. Moretto & P. Scuffham, 2016. "The Efficiency of Increasing the Capacity of Physiotherapy Screening Clinics or Traditional Medical Services to Address Unmet Demand in Orthopaedic Outpatients: A Practical Application of Discrete Eve," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 479-491, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0246-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0246-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0246-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0246-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Eddy & William Hollingworth & J. Jaime Caro & Joel Tsevat & Kathryn M. McDonald & John B. Wong, 2012. "Model Transparency and Validation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 733-743, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Syed Salleh & Praveen Thokala & Alan Brennan & Ruby Hughes & Simon Dixon, 2017. "Discrete Event Simulation-Based Resource Modelling in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(10), pages 989-1006, October.
    2. Jesús Isaac Vázquez-Serrano & Rodrigo E. Peimbert-García & Leopoldo Eduardo Cárdenas-Barrón, 2021. "Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-20, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitris Bertsimas & John Silberholz & Thomas Trikalinos, 2018. "Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 105-118, March.
    2. Harvard, Stephanie & Winsberg, Eric & Symons, John & Adibi, Amin, 2021. "Value judgments in a COVID-19 vaccination model: A case study in the need for public involvement in health-oriented modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    3. Andrew J. Palmer & Julie A. Campbell & Barbara de Graaff & Nancy Devlin & Hasnat Ahmad & Philip M Clarke & Mingsheng Chen & Lei Si, 2021. "Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1950-1977, August.
    4. Matthew R Behrend & María-Gloria Basáñez & Jonathan I D Hamley & Travis C Porco & Wilma A Stolk & Martin Walker & Sake J de Vlas & for the NTD Modelling Consortium, 2020. "Modelling for policy: The five principles of the Neglected Tropical Diseases Modelling Consortium," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Simone A. Huygens & Isaac Corro Ramos & Carlijn V. C. Bouten & Jolanda Kluin & Shih Ting Chiu & Gary L. Grunkemeier & Johanna J. M. Takkenberg & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2020. "Early cost-utility analysis of tissue-engineered heart valves compared to bioprostheses in the aortic position in elderly patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 557-572, June.
    6. Víctor Granados-García & Ana M Contreras & Carmen García-Peña & Guillermo Salinas-Escudero & Hla-Hla Thein & Yvonne N Flores, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Testing Strategies that Use Antibody Levels to Detect Chronic Hepatitis C in Blood Donors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Adam Lundqvist & Katarina Steen Carlsson & Pierre Johansen & Emelie Andersson & Michael Willis, 2014. "Validation of the IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes and the Impact of Choice of Macrovascular Risk Equations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Thi-Phuong-Lan Nguyen & E Pamela Wright & Thanh-Trung Nguyen & C C M Schuiling-Veninga & M J Bijlsma & Thi-Bach-Yen Nguyen & M J Postma, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for and Managing Identified Hypertension for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Vietnam," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Johanna Leväsluoto & Johanna Kohl & Anton Sigfrids & Jussi Pihlajamäki & Janne Martikainen, 2021. "Digitalization as an Engine for Change? Building a Vision Pathway towards a Sustainable Health Care System by Using the MLP and Health Economic Decision Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    10. Han-I. Wang & Alexandra Smith & Eline Aas & Eve Roman & Simon Crouch & Cathy Burton & Russell Patmore, 2017. "Treatment cost and life expectancy of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): a discrete event simulation model on a UK population-based observational cohort," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 255-267, March.
    11. Harvard, Stephanie & Werker, Gregory R. & Silva, Diego S., 2020. "Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    12. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Principles and methods of model validation for model risk reduction," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 146-153, June.
    13. Ankur Pandya & Ashley A Eggman & Hooman Kamel & Ajay Gupta & Bruce R Schackman & Pina C Sanelli, 2016. "Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Neuroimaging-Based Treatment of Acute Wake-Up Stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Vojtěch Kamenský & Vladimír Rogalewicz & Ondřej Gajdoš & Gleb Donin, 2022. "Discrete Event Simulation Model for Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Screening for Asymptomatic Patients with Lower Extremity Arterial Disease," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-16, September.
    15. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Paul Jülicher & Vladimir P Chulanov & Nikolay N Pimenov & Ekaterina Chirkova & Anna Yankina & Claudio Galli, 2019. "Streamlining the screening cascade for active Hepatitis C in Russia: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, July.
    17. Eleanor J. Murray, 2020. "Epidemiology's Time of Need: COVID-19 Calls for Epidemic-Related Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 105-120, Fall.
    18. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Olga Theou & Justin Beilby & Matteo Cesari & Renuka Visvanathan, 2019. "Structuring a conceptual model for cost-effectiveness analysis of frailty interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.
    19. Rudabeh Meskarian & Marion L Penn & Sarah Williams & Thomas Monks, 2017. "A facility location model for analysis of current and future demand for sexual health services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Svenn Alexander Hansen & Eline Aas & Oddvar Solli, 2020. "A cost-utility analysis of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in the treatment of erectile dysfunction," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 73-84, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0246-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.