Software programs assess hospital security weaknesses.

In the United States, 87.3% of the patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are treated with hemodialysis (HD) and 12.7% with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This represents a greater use of HD than in many other nations. We mailed a survey questionnaire to members of the National Kidney Foundation Council on Dialysis to better understand the attitudes of American nephrologists toward dialysis modality decisions. We received responses from 240 of 507 nephrologists (47.3%). The respondents were heavily involved in clinical dialysis work. Results showed that decisions regarding modality selection were strongly based on patient preference (4.54 on a scale of 1 to 5), quality of life (4.18), morbidity (4.02), and mortality (3.90), whereas the least important factors reported were facility reimbursement (2.09) and physician reimbursement (1.98). When asked about the current use of modalities, hospital-based HD and full-care HD were believed to be overused (2.63 for each on a scale of 1 [vastly overused] to 5 [vastly underused]), whereas home HD (4.29), continuous ambulatory PD (3.71), and cycler PD (3.59) were underused. A hypothetical question about optimal modality distribution to maximize survival or cost-effectiveness showed that HD should constitute 71% or 66% of dialysis (with 11% or 14% in the form of home HD, respectively). PD use would increase between two- and threefold over current practices. Our results suggest that American nephrologists believe home therapies are underused. Because modality distribution is an important determinant of costs and possibly outcomes in patients with ESRD, there is an urgent need for further research in this area.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2001

Cost-benefit analysis of social work services in the emergency department: a conceptual model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an economic model for formal cost-benefit analysis of emergency department (ED)-based social services. METHODS: The varied monetary costs and benefits associated with ED-based social work services were projected for three hypothetical levels of ED volume (30,000, 60,000, and 90,000 patients/year). Primary benefits included the prevention of return ED visits, the prevention of "social" hospital admissions, and the protection of doctor and nurse time. The primary cost was salary support for full-time social work staffing. Sensitivity analysis was performed to account for varying estimates. RESULTS: For a small-volume ED, total benefits to offset costs ranged from $43,869 to $81,504, yielding a net cost of $99,936 up to $137,571 for full-time social work coverage. For a moderate-size ED, total benefits ranged from $87,660 to $162,930, yielding a net cost of only $18,510 on the high end of the sensitivity analysis, and $87,668 on the low end. For a large-volume ED, total benefits ranged from $131,529 to $247,434, yielding a net cost of $49,911 on the low end of the sensitivity analysis, but a net benefit of $65,994 on the high end. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated social work staffing of EDs may yield net economic benefits, especially in large urban centers. Moderate-size EDs may almost "break even" in economic terms, and small EDs may realize a net cost, but in either case, the cost of social services can be significantly offset by decreased utilization of hospital and ED services, and by more efficient use of medical staff time.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗