Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:12:46.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment in Kazakhstan: 3 years’ experience of one unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2019

Andrey Avdeyev*
Affiliation:
Medical Center Hospital of the President’s Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan Astana Medical University, Kazakhstan
Adlet Tabarov
Affiliation:
Medical Center Hospital of the President’s Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan Republican Center for Health Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Amir Akhetov
Affiliation:
Medical Center Hospital of the President’s Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Nasrulla Shanazarov
Affiliation:
Medical Center Hospital of the President’s Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan
David Hailey
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong, Australia
Aygul Kaptagayeva
Affiliation:
Ministry of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Liazzat Zhanabekova
Affiliation:
Medical Center Hospital of the President’s Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Aliya Gizatullina
Affiliation:
Medical Center Hospital of the President’s Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Larissa Makalkina
Affiliation:
Astana Medical University, Kazakhstan
*
Author for correspondence: Andrey Avdeyev, E-mail: avdeyev.andrey@yahoo.com

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to describe the development and activities of the Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) Unit in the Hospital of the President's Affairs Administration, one of the first examples of the implementation of HB-HTA into the practice of Kazakhstani hospitals.

Methods

Details of the development of the Unit were obtained from the hospital's administrative records. The Unit's own records were used to describe the reports prepared and the clinical areas that were covered. Responses to recommendations in the Unit's reports were obtained from hospital administration and individual departments. Estimates of savings and payback periods were based on data from the hospital information system, and data submitted by manufacturers and distributors of medical equipment.

Results

Fifty-one rapid- and mini-HTA reports were prepared by the Unit from 2015 to 2017. Seventeen health technologies (33 percent) were not recommended for implementation in hospital practice. Refusal to implement sixteen of these technologies saved approximately 1,053,500 USD. Of the thirty-four recommended health technologies, twenty-four were implemented to treat or diagnose 1,376 patients, and eight others were included in plans for 2018–20. Of the twenty-four implemented health technologies, twelve did not require additional investments. The payback period of investments for the other twelve implemented technologies is not more than 3 years for six, less than 5 years for four, and more than 10 years for two technologies.

Conclusions

Establishment of the HB-HTA Unit in the hospital created the basis for making informed managerial decisions; identifying key directions for strategic development; and improving hospital management.

Type
Theme Submission
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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.)

References

2.Sampietro-Colom, L, Lach, K, Cicchetti, A, et al. (2015) The AdHopHTA handbook: a handbook of hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB -HTA); Public deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018). http://www.adhophta.eu/handbook (accessed November 15, 2018).Google Scholar
3.Kidholm, K, Ehlers, L, Korsbek, L, et al. (2009) Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25, 4248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M, Dibidino, R, Corio, M (2008) Hospital based health technology assessment world-wide survey. Hospital based health technology assessment Sub-Interest Group. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). https://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/HospitalBasedHTA/2008Files/HospitalBasedHTAISGSurveyReport.pdf (accessed November 15, 2018).Google Scholar
5.Sampietro-Colom, L, Morilla-Bachs, I, Gutierrez-Moreno, S, Gallo, P (2012) Development and test of a decision support tool for hospital health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28, 460465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Martin, J Evidence in context: Hospital-based HTA adds significantly to Arms-Length HTA in Canada. Panel Session 28 – “Same, same but different”: HTA in and for Hospitals. HTAi 11th Annual Meeting, Washington. http://www.pthv.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF_Pflege/Vorlesungsunterlagen/Bruehl/HTAI_AbstractVolume_web1_S.147.pdf (accessed November 15, 2018).Google Scholar
7.Nielsen, CP, Funch, TM, Kristensen, FB (2011) Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy 16(Suppl 2), 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Sharip, B, Tabarov, A, Avdeyev, A, et al. (2017) Implementation of hospital-based Health Technology Assessment in the Republic of Kazakhstan (2 years' experience). ISPOR 22nd Annual International Meeting Research Abstracts. Value Health 20, A24A25.Google Scholar
9.Kosherbayeva, L, Hailey, D, Kurakbaev, K, et al. (2016) Implementation of health technology assessment work in a hospital in Kazakhstan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 32, 7880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Thokala, P, Duenas, A (2012) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 15, 11721181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Diaby, V, Goeree, R (2014) How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14, 8199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Sussex, J, Rollet, P, Garau, M, et al. (2013) A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health 16:11631169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, et al. (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making - An introduction: Report of 1 the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 19, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Marsh, K, IJzerman, M, Thokala, P, et al. (2016) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis For Health Care Decision Making - Emerging good practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 19, 125137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Avdeyev, A, Tabarov, A, Kaptagayeva, A, Makalkina, L (2017) Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the field of hospital-based health technology assessment. [Russian] Vestnik KazNMU 4, 10314.Google Scholar
16.Gagnon, MP, Abdeljelil, AB, Desmartis, M, et al. (2011) Opportunities to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making through the use of health technology assessment Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.Google Scholar
17.Mitchell, MD, Williams, K, Brennan, PJ, Umscheid, CA (2010) Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: Two case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26, 294300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Demerdjian, G (2015) A 10-year hospital-based health technology assessment program in a public hospital in Argentina. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31, 103110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Ju, H, Hewson, K (2014) Health technology assessment and evidence-based policy making: Queensland Department of Health experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 30, 595600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.McGregor, M (2012) The impact of reports of The Technology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre. Montreal: McGill University Health Centre. https://www.mcgill.ca/tau/files/tau/muhc_tau_2012_65_impact_a.pdf (accessed November 15. 2018).Google Scholar
21.Poulin, P, Austen, L, Kortbeek, JB, et al. (2012) New technologies and surgical innovation: Five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov 19, 187199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Bodeau-Livinec, F, Simon, E, Montagnier-Petrissans, C, et al. (2006) Impact of CEDIT recommendations: An example of health technology assessment in a hospital network. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22, 161168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Avdeyev et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Avdeyev et al. supplementary material(File)
File 55 KB