Cost analysis of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: evidence from a randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE
To undertake an economic evaluation of nurse telephone consultation using decision support software in comparison with usual general practice care provided by a general practice cooperative.


METHODS
Cost analysis from an NHS perspective using stochastic data from a randomised controlled trial.


METHODS
General practice cooperative with 55 general practitioners serving 97 000 registered patients in Wiltshire, England.


METHODS
All patients contacting the service, or about whom the service was contacted during the trial year (January 1997 to January 1998).


METHODS
Costs and savings to the NHS during the trial year.


RESULTS
The cost of providing nurse telephone consultation was 81 237 pound sterling per annum. This, however, determined a 94 422 pound sterling reduction of other costs for the NHS arising from reduced emergency admissions to hospital. Using point estimates for savings, the cost analysis, combined with the analysis of outcomes, showed a dominance situation for the intervention over general practice cooperative care alone. If a larger improvement in outcomes is assumed (upper 95% confidence limit) NHS savings increase to 123 824 pound sterling per annum. Savings of only 3728 pound sterling would, however, arise in a scenario where lower 95% confidence limits for outcome differences were observed. To break even, the intervention would have needed to save 138 emergency hospital admissions per year, around 90% of the effect achieved in the trial. Additional savings of 16 928 pound sterling for general practice arose from reduced travel to visit patients at home and fewer surgery appointments within three days of a call.


CONCLUSIONS
Nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care may reduce NHS costs in the long term by reducing demand for emergency admission to hospital. General practitioners currently bear most of the cost of nurse telephone consultation and benefit least from the savings associated with it. This indicates that the service produces benefits in terms of service quality, which are beyond the reach of this cost analysis.
Lattimer
V
V
Health Care Research Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD.
Sassi
F
F
George
S
S
Moore
M
M
Turnbull
J
J
Mullee
M
M
Smith
H
H
D000208:Acute Disease / Q000191:economics / Q000451:nursing*; D017046:Cost Savings; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D020000:Decision Support Systems, Clinical; D004630:Emergencies / Q000451:nursing; D004632:Emergency Medical Services / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration; D004739:England; D005194:Family Practice / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration; D006760:Hospitalization / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015277:Hotlines / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration; D006792:House Calls / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D009739:Nursing Services / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity