1. FUNDING OF POISON CENTERS-REALLY A LACK OF RESOURCES OR A LACK OF QUALITY?
- Author
-
Brockstedt, M, Ziller, S, and Tietze, KW
- Subjects
Poison control centers -- Quality management ,Public health -- Finance ,Environmental issues ,Health ,Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics industries - Abstract
Objective: Recent discussions in different countries about the lack of resources for poison centers have focused on the amount of work and the number of calls per capita of the population served. Quality assessment has been concentrated on whether the information given to the callers was timely and correct due to internal or external guidelines (procedural quality). The implementation of ISO 9000 standards has further contributed to this way of thinking and has reduced the discussion on poison center funding to proposals about optimizing computer systems. More important will be the answer to the basic questions, whether or not the information given had been necessary at all and its price therefore justified. The aim of poison information work within the complex health care systems has to be defined in terms of patient outcome data and the real impact and contribution of poison centers work within this system of adequate care (quality of results). We must shift our attention from how we achieve our goals and how we get money for it to the more important questions of what our goals really are and whether we do achieve them. Furthermore we have to imply a more science-oriented view on financing and support it by different epidemiologic methods. Methods: In the period 1996 to 1997 we prospectively collected patient outcome data on all childhood poisonings (age group 1 to 4 years) in the Greater Berlin area (3.4 million inhabitants), the sources being all 11 childrens hospitals, all 310 pediatric practices and all phone consults to the Berlin Poison Center (outcome data were missing in approximately 1.5% of cases). In addition, we undertook an intervention cohort study from July 1995 to June 1996 to evaluate lay persons ability to react more promptly and correctly at home in case of a possible childhood poisoning (24,000 toddlers being the intervention group). Results: Hitherto only estimates as to the epidemiology and health care impact of accidental childhood poisonings existed in Germany. Our data showed a 50% lower incidence rate (16/1000 age-related) than previously suspected, a similar incidence rate for mild and moderate poisonings (2.8/1000 age-related) and no severe or fatal poisonings during the study period (0/1000 age-related) compared to the estimated risk of 0.3/1000 age-related for the whole country. The money to conduct this epidemiologic study (approx. 250,000 Euro) could have financed about three additional staff members at the Berlin Poison Center during the study period, but with the excellent level of patient outcome already achieved it is improbable that these additional staff members would have contributed to a better outcome, although in the long run factors concerning the procedural quality of our work might favor additional staff. The study data on the other hand help to set the high standard and focus health care providers to look into means to keep these standards by way of cooperation of all institutions involved (pediatric practices, rescue teams, hospitals emergency care, the poison center) and lay people. In fact our parallel cohort intervention study showed that lay people reacted more promptly and acted more appropriately to our medical recommendations if they had received a so-called pediatric emergency kit containing activated charcoal as a method of anticipated guidance prior to an accident. Conclusions: It is not possible to apply simple cost: benefit calculations to the positive effect of poison centers work because confounding and contributing factors exist within the complex health care systems; therefore an integrated public health approach renders more convincing data in the way of cost: effectiveness. Besides the integrated view helps poison centers to find partners in their strive for excellence and funding, based on patient outcome data and the best knowledge available. The integrated public health approach might lead to a redefinition of poison centers tasks as well: identification of frequently occurring nontoxic exposures has to be transferred into community based prevention programs as does further support of the concept of anticipated guidance in the first aid treatment of childhood poisonings by lay people. This might lead to a reduction of calls to poison centers, but at the same time strengthen their role in toxicovigilance by contributing data and knowledge to this process. The focus on calls per capita of population served counteracts further improvements and might turn into an obstacle, if support in funding from insurance companies etc. is asked. This approach might likewise lead to new cooperation structures within the field of emergency medicine or to a reduction in the number of poison centers for a country, or to differently trained staff members in the future. Scientific evaluation e.g. concerning the role of information brokerage in health care and repetitive data on the epidemiology of poisonings have to accompany poison centers work continuously. Funding of poison centers, that takes into account these developments and looks forward to an integrated role in a complex evidence-based public health care system, offers a systematic, reliable and scientific base for the sound financing of these institutions. Brockstedt M(1), Ziller S(2), Tietze KW(3). (1) Berlin Poison Center (2) Berlin Center of Public Health (3) Robert Koch-Institute Berlin, Germany
- Published
- 2000