Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A propensity matched cost analysis of medical emergency team calls led by nurse practitioners versus intensive care registrars
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A propensity matched cost analysis of medical emergency team calls led by nurse practitioners versus intensive care registrars
Do you wish to request the book?
A propensity matched cost analysis of medical emergency team calls led by nurse practitioners versus intensive care registrars
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A propensity matched cost analysis of medical emergency team calls led by nurse practitioners versus intensive care registrars
2025
Overview
Nurse practitioner-led MET calls have been shown to improve clinical outcomes versus ICU registrar-led MET calls. However, the cost implications of a nurse practitioner-led MET call system is not known. We conducted cost analysis from the healthcare service perspective to compare the costs of nurse practitioner- and ICU registrar-led MET calls.
A retrospective study of MET calls between 1 June 2016 and 9 March 2018 including patients with first MET call during their hospital admission. The cost analysis compared MET calls attended by nurse practitioners against those attended by ICU registrars.
Inpatient costs for nurse practitioner- and ICU registrar-led MET calls.
1,343 MET calls were included in the full dataset with a mean cost per ICU registrar-led MET calls and nurse practitioner led MET calls of AU$19,836 (95 % CI: AU$15,778 – AU$23,895) versus AU$16,404 (95 % CI: AU$14,988 – AU$17,820) respectively and a difference of AU$3,432 (95 % CI: −AU$38 – AU$6,903, p = 0.053). In the propensity-score matched analysis, the mean cost per ICU registrar-led MET calls and nurse practitioner led MET calls was AU$19,009 (95 % CI: AU$15,439 – AU$22,578) and AU$13,937 (95 % CI: AU$12,038 – AU$15,835) respectively, with a difference of AU$5,072 (95 % CI: AU$1,061 – AU$9,082, p = 0.013). A 24-hour nurse practitioners-led MET call service would break even at 101 MET calls leading to ICU admissions per year.
Nurse practitioners-led MET calls saved significant costs compared to ICU registrar-led MET calls. Assuming that the difference in costs is due to shorter ICU length of stay, a health service that receives more than 101 MET calls leading to ICU admissions per year can save costs with a 24-hour nurse practitioner-led MET call service.
This study helps in identifying the healthcare services where nurse practitioners −led MET systems could be implemented to be cost saving from health service perspective.
Publisher
Elsevier Ltd,Elsevier Limited
Subject
/ Aged
/ Costs
/ Costs and Cost Analysis - methods
/ Costs and Cost Analysis - statistics & numerical data
/ Female
/ Funding
/ Humans
/ Intensive Care Units - economics
/ Intensive Care Units - organization & administration
/ Intensive Care Units - statistics & numerical data
/ Male
/ Nurse Practitioners - economics
/ Nurse Practitioners - statistics & numerical data
/ Nurses
/ Patients
/ Teams
