This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/contact-us. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.
Please go to digital.ahrq.gov for current information.

Influence of simple computerized feedback on prescription charges in an ambulatory clinic. A randomized clinical trial

Authors
Hershey CO, Porter DK, Breslau D, Cohen DI
Journal
Med Care
Publication Date
1986 Jun
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
472-81
  • HIT Description: Computer generated summary of ambulatory prescription drug charges. More info...
  • Purpose of Study: Assess the effect of feedback of doctor specific prescribing charges on prescribing charges for outpatients.
  • Years of study: Published 1986.
  • Study Design: Randomized clinical trial.
  • Outcomes: Cost of the intervention and prescription cost.
Summary:
  • Settings: The general medical clinic of a university affiliated urban county hospital.
  • Intervention: Monthly feedback of a computer generated summary of the prior months outpatient prescription charges given to medical house-staff physicians. This was compared to physicians receiving no feedback.
  • Evaluation Method: Costs of prescriptions and number of prescriptions per patients along with a survey of attitude and knowledge.
  • Description: A computer program designed to abstract the hospital's billing data and organize the information into a usable form for feedback.
  • Financial Context: The implementation occurred in a county general hospital.
  • Costs: Cost of writing the program was estimated at 17 hours. Monthly feedback required 30 minutes research assistant time and 23 minutes of computer time.
  • Changes in healthcare costs: The mean charge per prescription and the mean pharmacy charge per patient began to decline late in the intervention, more than six months after implementation. There was a 6.5% reduction in mean charge per prescription and a 9.7% reduction for total charge per patient. The authors estimate that, even accounting for the cost of the implementation, that the intervention saved $6,500 per month.
The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.