Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Validating the use of Hospital Episode Statistics data and comparison of costing methodologies for economic evaluation: an end-of-life case study from the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP)
  1. Joanna C Thorn1,
  2. Emma L Turner1,
  3. Luke Hounsome2,
  4. Eleanor Walsh1,
  5. Liz Down1,
  6. Julia Verne2,
  7. Jenny L Donovan1,
  8. David E Neal3,
  9. Freddie C Hamdy3,
  10. Richard M Martin1,
  11. Sian M Noble1
  12. the CAP trial group
  1. 1School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Public Health England National Cancer Intelligence Network, Bristol, UK
  3. 3Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joanna C Thorn; joanna.thorn{at}bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of routine data for costing inpatient resource use in a large clinical trial and to investigate costing methodologies.

Design Final-year inpatient cost profiles were derived using (1) data extracted from medical records mapped to the National Health Service (NHS) reference costs via service codes and (2) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data using NHS reference costs. Trust finance departments were consulted to obtain costs for comparison purposes.

Setting 7 UK secondary care centres.

Population A subsample of 292 men identified as having died at least a year after being diagnosed with prostate cancer in Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP), a long-running trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.

Results Both inpatient cost profiles showed a rise in costs in the months leading up to death, and were broadly similar. The difference in mean inpatient costs was £899, with HES data yielding ∼8% lower costs than medical record data (differences compatible with chance, p=0.3). Events were missing from both data sets. 11 men (3.8%) had events identified in HES that were all missing from medical record review, while 7 men (2.4%) had events identified in medical record review that were all missing from HES. The response from finance departments to requests for cost data was poor: only 3 of 7 departments returned adequate data sets within 6 months.

Conclusions Using HES routine data coupled with NHS reference costs resulted in mean annual inpatient costs that were very similar to those derived via medical record review; therefore, routinely available data can be used as the primary method of costing resource use in large clinical trials. Neither HES nor medical record review represent gold standards of data collection. Requesting cost data from finance departments is impractical for large clinical trials.

Trial registration number ISRCTN92187251; Pre-results.

  • resource use
  • cost-effectiveness analysis
  • economic evaluation
  • costing methodology
  • hospital episode statistics
  • validation

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.