Cost-benefit analysis of pharmacist interventions over 36 months in a university hospital.

Autor:	Cazarim MS; Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil., Rodrigues JPV; Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil., Calcini PS; Universidade de Ribeirão Preto. Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil., Einarson TR; University of Toronto. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy. Toronto, Canada., Pereira LRL; Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Revista de saude publica [Rev Saude Publica] 2020 Sep 30; Vol. 54, pp. 94. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Sep 30 (Print Publication: 2020).
DOI:	10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054001895
Abstrakt:	Objective: To perform a cost-benefits analysis of a clinical pharmacy (CP) service implemented in a Neurology ward of a tertiary teaching hospital. Methods: This is a cost-benefit analysis of a single arm, prospective cohort study performed at the adult Neurology Unit over 36 months, which has evaluated the results of a CP service from a hospital and Public Health System (PHS) perspective. The interventions were classified into 14 categories and the costs identified as direct medical costs. The results were analyzed by the total and marginal cost, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and the net benefit (NB). Results: The total 334 patients were followed-up and the highest occurrence in 506 interventions was drug introduction (29.0%). The marginal cost for the hospital and avoided cost for PHS was US$182±32 and US$25,536±4,923 per year; and US$0.55 and US$76.4 per patient/year. The BCR and NB were 0.0, -US$26,105 (95%CI -31,850 - -10,610), -US$27,112 (95%CI -33,160-11,720) for the hospital and; 3.0 (95%CI 1.97-4.94), US$51,048 (95%CI 27,645-75,716) and, 4.6 (95%CI 2.24-10.05), US$91,496 (95%CI 34,700-168,050; p < 0.001) for the PHS, both considering adhered and total interventions, respectively. Conclusions: The CP service was not directly cost-benefit at the hospital perspective, but it presented savings for forecast cost related to the occurrence of preventable morbidities, measuring a good cost-benefit for the PHS.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu