IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v12y2022i1d10.1186_s13561-022-00412-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A decision support tool with health economic modelling for better management of DVT patients

Author

Listed:
  • Reda Lebcir

    (University of Hertfordshire)

  • Usame Yakutcan

    (University of Hertfordshire)

  • Eren Demir

    (University of Hertfordshire)

Abstract

Background Responding to the increasing demand for Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) treatment in the United Kingdom (UK) at times of limited budgets and resources is a great challenge for decision-makers. Therefore, there is a need to find innovative policies, which improve operational efficiency and achieve the best value for money for patients. This study aims to develop a Decision Support Tool (DST) that assesses the impact of implementing new DVT patients’ management and care policies aiming at improving efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing value for money. Methods With the involvement of stakeholders from a number of DVT services in the UK, we developed a DST combining discrete event simulation (DES) for DVT pathways and the Socio Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR) approach, an agile health economics technique. The model was inputted with data from the literature, local datasets from DVT services, and interviews conducted with DVT specialists. The tool was validated and verified by various stakeholders and two policies, namely shifting more patients to community services (CSs) and increasing the usage of the Novel Oral Anticoagulant (NOAC) drug were selected for testing on the model. Results Sixteen possible scenarios were run on the model for a period of 5 years and generated treatment activity, human resources, costing, and value for money outputs. The results indicated that hospital visits can be reduced by up to 50%. Human resources’ usage can be greatly lowered driven mainly by offering NOAC treatment to more patients. Also, combining both policies can lead to cost savings of up to 50%. The STAR method, which considers both service and patient perspectives, produced findings that implementing both policies provide a significantly higher value for money compared to the situation when neither is applied. Conclusions The combination of DES and STAR can help decision-makers determine the interventions that have the highest benefits from service providers' and patients’ perspectives. This is important given the mismatch between care demand and resources and the resulting need for improving operational and economic outcomes. The DST tool has the potential to inform policymaking in DVT services in the UK to improve performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Reda Lebcir & Usame Yakutcan & Eren Demir, 2022. "A decision support tool with health economic modelling for better management of DVT patients," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00412-9
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-022-00412-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-022-00412-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-022-00412-9?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    2. Olfa Rejeb & Claire Pilet & Sabri Hamana & Xiaolan Xie & Thierry Durand & Saber Aloui & Anne Doly & Pierre Biron & Lionel Perrier & Vincent Augusto, 2018. "Performance and cost evaluation of health information systems using micro-costing and discrete-event simulation," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 204-223, June.
    3. James E. Stahl & David Rattner & Richard Wiklund & Jessica Lester & Molly Beinfeld & G. Scott Gazelle, 2004. "Reorganizing the System of Care Surrounding Laparoscopic Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Discrete-Event Simulation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 461-471, October.
    4. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    5. Beate Jahn & Karl Peter Pfeiffer & Engelbert Theurl & Jean-Eric Tarride & Ron Goeree, 2010. "Capacity Constraints and Cost-Effectiveness: A Discrete Event Simulation for Drug-Eluting Stents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 16-28, January.
    6. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Eren Demir & David Southern, 2017. "Enabling better management of patients: discrete event simulation combined with the STAR approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 577-590, May.
    2. Carmen María Yago & Francisco Javier Díez, 2023. "DESnets: A Graphical Representation for Discrete Event Simulation and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Ramwadhdoebe, Sabrina & Buskens, Erik & Sakkers, Ralph J.B. & Stahl, James E., 2009. "A tutorial on discrete-event simulation for health policy design and decision making: Optimizing pediatric ultrasound screening for hip dysplasia as an illustration," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 143-150, December.
    4. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    5. Heß, Michael (Ed.) & Schlieter, Hannes (Ed.), 2014. "Modellierung im Gesundheitswesen: Tagungsband des Workshops im Rahmen der Modellierung 2014," ICB Research Reports 57, University Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB).
    6. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale & Rac, Valeria E. & Bytautas, Jessica P. & Krahn, Murray & Peacock, Stuart, 2020. "Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    7. Ortiz-Barrios, Miguel & Arias-Fonseca, Sebastián & Ishizaka, Alessio & Barbati, Maria & Avendaño-Collante, Betty & Navarro-Jiménez, Eduardo, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and discrete-event simulation for capacity management of intensive care units during the Covid-19 pandemic: A case study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    9. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    10. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    11. Becky Pennington & Alex Filby & Lesley Owen & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1101-1112, September.
    12. Gemma E. Shields & Mark Wilberforce & Paul Clarkson & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2022. "Factors Limiting Subgroup Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and a Call for Transparency," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 149-156, February.
    13. Hunsmann, Moritz, 2012. "Limits to evidence-based health policymaking: Policy hurdles to structural HIV prevention in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1477-1485.
    14. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Richard F. MacLehose & Yadira Peralta & Karen M. Kuntz & Eva A. Enns, 2018. "Nonidentifiability in Model Calibration and Implications for Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 810-821, October.
    15. Koen Degeling & Maarten J. IJzerman & Mariel S. Lavieri & Mark Strong & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2020. "Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 348-363, April.
    16. Peter J. Dodd & Jeff J. Pennington & Liza Bronner Murrison & David W. Dowdy, 2018. "Simple Inclusion of Complex Diagnostic Algorithms in Infectious Disease Models for Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(8), pages 930-941, November.
    17. K Katsaliaki & N Mustafee, 2011. "Applications of simulation within the healthcare context," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(8), pages 1431-1451, August.
    18. Jonathan Karnon & James Stahl & Alan Brennan & J. Jaime Caro & Javier Mar & Jörgen Möller, 2012. "Modeling Using Discrete Event Simulation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 701-711, September.
    19. Annika Hoyer & Sophie Kaufmann & Ralph Brinks, 2019. "Risk factors in the illness-death model: Simulation study and the partial differential equation about incidence and prevalence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.

    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:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00412-9. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.