COST ANALYSIS OF PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL CATHETER IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is a useful option in providing secure venous access, which enables patients to be discharged earlier with the provision of home care. The objective was to identify the costs associated with having a PICC from a societal perspective, and to identify factors that are associated with total PICC costs. METHODS: Data were obtained from a retrospective cohort of 469 hospitalized pediatric patients with PICCs inserted. Both direct and indirect costs were estimated from a societal perspective. Insertion costs, complication costs, nurse and physician assessment costs, inpatient ward costs, catheter removal costs, home care costs, travel costs, and the cost associated with productivity losses incurred by parents were included in this study. RESULTS: Based on catheter dwell time, the median total cost associated with a PICC per patient per day (including inpatient hospital costs) was $3,133.5 ($2,210.7-$9,627.0) in 2017 Canadian dollars ($1.00USD = $1.25CAD in 2017). The adjusted mean cost per patient per day was $2,648.2 ($2,402.4-$2,920.4). Excluding inpatient ward costs, the median total and adjusted costs per patient per day were $198.8 ($91.8-$2,475.8) and $362.7($341.0-$386.0), respectively. Younger age, occurrence of complications, more catheter dwell days, wards with more intensive care, and the absence of home care were significant factors associated with higher total PICC costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated the costs associated with PICCs. This information may be helpful for healthcare providers to understand PICC related cost in children and resource implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".