Cost savings with interventions to reduce aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients

James M. Camamo, Kurt Weibel, Terence OKeeffe, Yvonne Huckleberry, Brian J. Kopp, Conrad Diven, Brian L. Erstad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this evaluation is to describe the cost savings associated with multimodal interventions aimed at reducing aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients without adversely affecting costs associated with length of stay (LOS). Materials and methods: Subjects were included in the analysis if they were aged more than 18 years, on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, and received aerosolized bronchodilators. Patients were excluded if they had reversible airway disease, an indication needing bronchodilator therapy. Patient data were obtained using the University Health System Consortium Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (Chicago, IL) to compare outcomes during two 6-month periods separated by a 4-month intervention phase aimed to reduce bronchodilator use. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, and LOS (observed and expected) between the preintervention and postintervention phases. Based on whole acquisition costs, the total cost of bronchodilators dispensed to the adult intensive care units over the 6-month postintervention phase was reduced by $56. 960 compared with the 6-month preintervention phase ($120. 562 vs $63. 602, respectively). Conclusions: Multimodal efforts to restrict aerosolized bronchodilator therapy in mechanically ventilated patients were successful and led to sustained reductions in use that was associated with substantial reductions in cost, without affecting LOS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)814-816
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Critical Care
Volume29
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cost Savings
Bronchodilator Agents
Costs and Cost Analysis
Length of Stay
Intensive Care Units
Artificial Respiration
Databases
Health
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Bronchodilator
  • Cost savings
  • Mechanical ventilation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Cost savings with interventions to reduce aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients. / Camamo, James M.; Weibel, Kurt; OKeeffe, Terence; Huckleberry, Yvonne; Kopp, Brian J.; Diven, Conrad; Erstad, Brian L.

In: Journal of Critical Care, Vol. 29, No. 5, 01.01.2014, p. 814-816.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Camamo, James M. ; Weibel, Kurt ; OKeeffe, Terence ; Huckleberry, Yvonne ; Kopp, Brian J. ; Diven, Conrad ; Erstad, Brian L. / Cost savings with interventions to reduce aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients. In: Journal of Critical Care. 2014 ; Vol. 29, No. 5. pp. 814-816.
@article{43223013840f46028188ec9b7a89f65c,
title = "Cost savings with interventions to reduce aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this evaluation is to describe the cost savings associated with multimodal interventions aimed at reducing aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients without adversely affecting costs associated with length of stay (LOS). Materials and methods: Subjects were included in the analysis if they were aged more than 18 years, on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, and received aerosolized bronchodilators. Patients were excluded if they had reversible airway disease, an indication needing bronchodilator therapy. Patient data were obtained using the University Health System Consortium Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (Chicago, IL) to compare outcomes during two 6-month periods separated by a 4-month intervention phase aimed to reduce bronchodilator use. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, and LOS (observed and expected) between the preintervention and postintervention phases. Based on whole acquisition costs, the total cost of bronchodilators dispensed to the adult intensive care units over the 6-month postintervention phase was reduced by $56. 960 compared with the 6-month preintervention phase ($120. 562 vs $63. 602, respectively). Conclusions: Multimodal efforts to restrict aerosolized bronchodilator therapy in mechanically ventilated patients were successful and led to sustained reductions in use that was associated with substantial reductions in cost, without affecting LOS.",
keywords = "Bronchodilator, Cost savings, Mechanical ventilation",
author = "Camamo, {James M.} and Kurt Weibel and Terence OKeeffe and Yvonne Huckleberry and Kopp, {Brian J.} and Conrad Diven and Erstad, {Brian L.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.05.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "814--816",
journal = "Journal of Critical Care",
issn = "0883-9441",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost savings with interventions to reduce aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients

AU - Camamo, James M.

AU - Weibel, Kurt

AU - OKeeffe, Terence

AU - Huckleberry, Yvonne

AU - Kopp, Brian J.

AU - Diven, Conrad

AU - Erstad, Brian L.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this evaluation is to describe the cost savings associated with multimodal interventions aimed at reducing aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients without adversely affecting costs associated with length of stay (LOS). Materials and methods: Subjects were included in the analysis if they were aged more than 18 years, on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, and received aerosolized bronchodilators. Patients were excluded if they had reversible airway disease, an indication needing bronchodilator therapy. Patient data were obtained using the University Health System Consortium Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (Chicago, IL) to compare outcomes during two 6-month periods separated by a 4-month intervention phase aimed to reduce bronchodilator use. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, and LOS (observed and expected) between the preintervention and postintervention phases. Based on whole acquisition costs, the total cost of bronchodilators dispensed to the adult intensive care units over the 6-month postintervention phase was reduced by $56. 960 compared with the 6-month preintervention phase ($120. 562 vs $63. 602, respectively). Conclusions: Multimodal efforts to restrict aerosolized bronchodilator therapy in mechanically ventilated patients were successful and led to sustained reductions in use that was associated with substantial reductions in cost, without affecting LOS.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this evaluation is to describe the cost savings associated with multimodal interventions aimed at reducing aerosolized bronchodilator use in mechanically ventilated patients without adversely affecting costs associated with length of stay (LOS). Materials and methods: Subjects were included in the analysis if they were aged more than 18 years, on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, and received aerosolized bronchodilators. Patients were excluded if they had reversible airway disease, an indication needing bronchodilator therapy. Patient data were obtained using the University Health System Consortium Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (Chicago, IL) to compare outcomes during two 6-month periods separated by a 4-month intervention phase aimed to reduce bronchodilator use. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, and LOS (observed and expected) between the preintervention and postintervention phases. Based on whole acquisition costs, the total cost of bronchodilators dispensed to the adult intensive care units over the 6-month postintervention phase was reduced by $56. 960 compared with the 6-month preintervention phase ($120. 562 vs $63. 602, respectively). Conclusions: Multimodal efforts to restrict aerosolized bronchodilator therapy in mechanically ventilated patients were successful and led to sustained reductions in use that was associated with substantial reductions in cost, without affecting LOS.

KW - Bronchodilator

KW - Cost savings

KW - Mechanical ventilation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84906056305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84906056305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.05.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.05.016

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 814

EP - 816

JO - Journal of Critical Care

JF - Journal of Critical Care

SN - 0883-9441

IS - 5

ER -