Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:30:51.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effective analysis of conventional and nurse-led clinics for common otological procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2006

S. Uppal ,
J. Jose ,
P. Banks ,
E. Mackay  and
A. P. Coatesworth
S. Uppal
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, York Hospital, York, UK
J. Jose
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, York Hospital, York, UK
P. Banks
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, York Hospital, York, UK
E. Mackay
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, York Hospital, York, UK
A. P. Coatesworth
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, York Hospital, York, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The need to reduce costs while providing a first-class service has led to the expansion in the role of nurses in recent years. We present results of a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of conventional and nurse-led out-patient ear clinics. Our results indicate that cost-effective health care is a distinct competitive advantage for nurses taking up some roles conventionally performed by doctors. The difference in mean cost of out-patient visit per patient between the two groups is £75.28. This is equivalent to a reduction in cost to the hospital of more than £47000 for the 626 patients seen in a nurse-led ear clinic in a year. The nurse-led service is thus more cost-effective and presents an opportunity by freeing up otolaryngologists’ time to see more complex patients and has the potential for reducing out-patient access time in the NHS.

Keywords

Otologic Surgical ProceduresNurse’s RoleCost-Benefit AnalysisCost Savings
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 118 , Issue 3 , March 2004 , pp. 189 - 192
Copyright
© Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)