| Title |
Evaluation of economic efficiencies in clinical retina practice: activity-based cost analysis and modeling to determine impacts of changes in patient management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s22019 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy G Murray, Paul Tornambe, Pravin Dugel, Kuo Bianchini Tong |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to report the use of activity-based cost analysis to identify areas of practice efficiencies and inefficiencies within a large academic retinal center and a small single-specialty group. This analysis establishes a framework for evaluating rapidly shifting clinical practices (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, microincisional vitrectomy surgery) and incorporating changing reimbursements for care delivery (intravitreal injections, optical coherence tomography [OCT]) to determine the impact on practice profitability. Pro forma modeling targeted the impact of declining reimbursement for OCT imaging and intravitreal injection using a strategy that incorporates activity-based cost analysis into a direct evaluation schema for clinical operations management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 26% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2011.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3,207
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,912
of 127,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 127,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.