Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Background: A sepsis care bundle of intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone was reported to improve treatment outcomes. The data to support it are uncertain and decision makers are likely to be cautious about adopting it. The objective of this study was to model the opportunity costs in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Robin Blythe, David Cook, Nicholas Graves
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: F1000 Research Ltd 2018-04-01
Series:F1000Research
Online Access:https://f1000research.com/articles/7-500/v1
id doaj-80bf4858b94c4b9ab6da8d16d4b475fc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-80bf4858b94c4b9ab6da8d16d4b475fc2020-11-25T02:49:33ZengF1000 Research LtdF1000Research2046-14022018-04-01710.12688/f1000research.14619.115909Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]Robin Blythe0David Cook1Nicholas Graves2Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaIntensive Care Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaBackground: A sepsis care bundle of intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone was reported to improve treatment outcomes. The data to support it are uncertain and decision makers are likely to be cautious about adopting it. The objective of this study was to model the opportunity costs in dollars and lives of waiting for better information before adopting the bundle. Methods: A decision tree was built using information from the literature. We modelled the impact of bundle adoption under three scenarios using a simulation in which the bundle was effective as reported in the primary trial, less effective based on other information, and ineffective. The measurements were health services costs, quality-adjusted life years, and transition probabilities. Results: If the bundle proves to be effective under either scenario, it will save billions of dollars and millions of life-years in the United States. This is the opportunity cost of delaying an adoption decision and waiting for better quality evidence. We suggest that hospital decision-makers consider implementing the bundle on a trial basis while monitoring costs and outcomes data even while the evidence base is uncertain. Conclusions: If the decision maker is unwilling to use the best available evidence now, but rather wishes to wait for definitive evidence they are risking incurring large costs for health care systems and for the patients they serve. An explicit analysis of uncertain clinical outcomes is a useful adjunct to guide decision making where there is clinical ambiguity. This approach offers a valid alternative to the default of clinical inactivity when faced with uncertainty.https://f1000research.com/articles/7-500/v1
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Robin Blythe
David Cook
Nicholas Graves
spellingShingle Robin Blythe
David Cook
Nicholas Graves
Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
F1000Research
author_facet Robin Blythe
David Cook
Nicholas Graves
author_sort Robin Blythe
title Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
title_short Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
title_full Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
title_fullStr Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
title_full_unstemmed Scepticaemia: The impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
title_sort scepticaemia: the impact on the health system and patients of delaying new treatments with uncertain evidence; a case study of the sepsis bundle [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
publisher F1000 Research Ltd
series F1000Research
issn 2046-1402
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Background: A sepsis care bundle of intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone was reported to improve treatment outcomes. The data to support it are uncertain and decision makers are likely to be cautious about adopting it. The objective of this study was to model the opportunity costs in dollars and lives of waiting for better information before adopting the bundle. Methods: A decision tree was built using information from the literature. We modelled the impact of bundle adoption under three scenarios using a simulation in which the bundle was effective as reported in the primary trial, less effective based on other information, and ineffective. The measurements were health services costs, quality-adjusted life years, and transition probabilities. Results: If the bundle proves to be effective under either scenario, it will save billions of dollars and millions of life-years in the United States. This is the opportunity cost of delaying an adoption decision and waiting for better quality evidence. We suggest that hospital decision-makers consider implementing the bundle on a trial basis while monitoring costs and outcomes data even while the evidence base is uncertain. Conclusions: If the decision maker is unwilling to use the best available evidence now, but rather wishes to wait for definitive evidence they are risking incurring large costs for health care systems and for the patients they serve. An explicit analysis of uncertain clinical outcomes is a useful adjunct to guide decision making where there is clinical ambiguity. This approach offers a valid alternative to the default of clinical inactivity when faced with uncertainty.
url https://f1000research.com/articles/7-500/v1
work_keys_str_mv AT robinblythe scepticaemiatheimpactonthehealthsystemandpatientsofdelayingnewtreatmentswithuncertainevidenceacasestudyofthesepsisbundleversion1referees2approved
AT davidcook scepticaemiatheimpactonthehealthsystemandpatientsofdelayingnewtreatmentswithuncertainevidenceacasestudyofthesepsisbundleversion1referees2approved
AT nicholasgraves scepticaemiatheimpactonthehealthsystemandpatientsofdelayingnewtreatmentswithuncertainevidenceacasestudyofthesepsisbundleversion1referees2approved
_version_ 1724742715763064832