ORCID Profile
0000-0001-7742-2883
Current Organisation
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.3310/KODQ0769
Abstract: Joint replacement surgery has revolutionised the management of degenerative joint disease. Increasing demand for surgery and post-surgical reviews has overwhelmed orthopaedic services and, consequently, many centres have reduced or stopped follow-up. Such disinvestment is without an evidence base and raises questions regarding the consequences to patients. To produce evidence- and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Our research question was ‘Is it safe to disinvest in mid- to late-term follow-up of hip and knee replacement?’. The study comprised three complementary evidence synthesis work packages to inform a final consensus process. Work package 1 was a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature. Work package 2 used routine national data sets (i.e. the Clinical Practice Research Datalink–Hospital Episode Statistics, Hospital Episode Statistics–National Joint Registry–patient-reported outcome measures) to identify pre, peri and postoperative predictors of mid- to late-term revision, and prospective data from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery. Work package 3 used a Markov model to simulate the survival, health-related quality of life and NHS costs of patients following hip or knee replacement surgery. Finally, evidence from work packages 1–3 informed a face-to-face consensus panel, which involved 32 stakeholders. Our overarching statements are as follows: (1) these recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up (2) the 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond 10 years and (3) in these recommendations, the term ‘complex cases’ refers to in idual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk of replacement failure. Our recommendations are as follows: for Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel 10A* (ODEP-10A*) minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided that there is rapid access to orthopaedic review (2) for ODEP-10A* minimum implants in complex cases or non-ODEP-10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years (3) at 10 years post hip and knee replacement, clinical and radiographic evaluation is recommended and (4) after 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment (note that ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required) [Stone M, Smith L, Kingsbury S, Czoski-Murray C, Judge A, Pinedo-Villanueva R, et al . Evidence-based follow-up recommendations following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (UK SAFE). Orthop Proc 2020 102 – B :13. 0.1302/1358-992X.2020.5.013 ]. The current absence of data beyond 10 years restricted the evidence base. For ODEP-10A* prostheses, the UK SAFE programme demonstrated that it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up in the 1- to 10-year period after non-complex hip and knee replacement. At 10 years, clinical and radiographic review is recommended. Complex cases, implants not meeting the 10A* criteria and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. The evidence base for follow-up after 10 years requires further evaluation. Further work should establish the most clinically effective and cost-effective model of delivering a rapid access service and evaluate alternative models for follow-up services, such as virtual clinics. Finally, the needs and outcomes of patients who are symptomatic but do not have appropriate follow-up should be investigated. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017053017. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research Vol. 10, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 06-01-2009
Abstract: Background. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. It is likely that treatment of AMD at earlier stages is more effective than later treatment thus, screening for AMD should be considered. The aim of this study was to develop a natural history model of AMD to estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening. Methods. A hybrid cohort/in idual s ling decision analytic model was developed. Primary data sets, expert elicitation, and data from the literature were used to populate the model. To incorporate joint parameter uncertainty, and to populate unobservable parameters, an innovative form of probabilistic calibration was applied to a range of output parameters. Results. In the reference case, annual screening from age 60 y is the most cost-effective option, although this is subject to high levels of uncertainty. Alternative, age-specific utility values show that screening is predicted to be less cost-effective, assuming interventions that reduce progression to wet AMD moderately improve the cost-effectiveness of screening, whereas the addition of anti—vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for juxtafoveal or subfoveal wet AMD lesions improves the cost-effectiveness of screening significantly. Conclusions. The extent of the uncertainty around the mean results, and the additional resources and possible reorganization of services required to implement screening, indicate that it may be preferable to reduce the level of uncertainty before implementing screening for AMD. Initial actions may be best targeted at assessing how routine data may be used to describe clinical presentation, a screening pilot study, and a secondary costing study.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-03-2009
DOI: 10.1111/J.1365-2753.2008.01000.X
Abstract: Medication errors can lead to preventable adverse drug events (pADEs) that have significant cost and health implications. Errors often occur at care interfaces, and various interventions have been devised to reduce medication errors at the point of admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to assess the incremental costs and effects [measured as quality adjusted life years (QALYs)] of a range of such interventions for which evidence of effectiveness exists. A previously published medication errors model was adapted to describe the pathway of errors occurring at admission through to the occurrence of pADEs. The baseline model was populated using literature-based values, and then calibrated to observed outputs. Evidence of effects was derived from a systematic review of interventions aimed at preventing medication error at hospital admission. All five interventions, for which evidence of effectiveness was identified, are estimated to be extremely cost-effective when compared with the baseline scenario. Pharmacist-led reconciliation intervention has the highest expected net benefits, and a probability of being cost-effective of over 60% by a QALY value of pound10 000. The medication errors model provides reasonably strong evidence that some form of intervention to improve medicines reconciliation is a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The variation in the reported effectiveness of the few identified studies of medication error interventions illustrates the need for extreme attention to detail in the development of interventions, but also in their evaluation and may justify the primary evaluation of more than one specification of included interventions.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-07-2008
Abstract: Cost-utility analysis of screening for anal cancer in high-risk groups from a UK perspective. Criteria for the assessment of screening programmes were combined in a Markov model representing the natural history of anal cancer and HIV infection in the UK population of men who have sex with men (MSM). Alternative screening programmes were overlaid on the natural history model to evaluate their impact. The model was populated using data derived from a systematic review of the literature, and calibrated probabilistically to represent joint uncertainty in the input parameters. Reference case results showed screening is unlikely to be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses identified two important parameters: regression from low-grade anal intra-epithelial neoplasia (AIN) and utility effects. Increased AIN regression rates resulted in a minimum incremental cost per QALY gained of 39,405 pounds, whereas a best case scenario reduced the ratio to 20,996 pounds. There are major areas of uncertainty. New analyses of existing primary data, undertaken specifically to inform regression rates may usefully update key parameters at little additional cost. If these analyses increase the likelihood that screening is cost-effective, further studies of the utility effects of treatment for high-grade AIN, and potential screening attendance rates may be justified.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 03-2009
DOI: 10.1007/BF03256137
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Carolyn Czoski Murray.