Abstract
Objective
Analysis of national implementation of the foetal fibronectin test in the diagnostics of threatened preterm labour in the Netherlands, and indication of the possible obstacles and consequences of implementation or no implementation.
Design
National questionnaire, retrospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness calculation.
Methods
We approached all hospitals in the Netherlands (n = 86) with a questionnaire on use of the fibronectin test. We also collected data on women who were referred to the Academic Medical Center (AMC), a tertiary care centre in Amsterdam, with symptoms of threatened preterm labour. We investigated whether the referred patients gave birth within 7 days, and whether unnecessary transfer to a centre with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) could have been avoided by implementation of the fibronectin test in the referring hospital.
Results
The fibronectin test was used in 34% of the hospitals and an additional 17% were in the process of implementation. The most important reasons not to use the fibronectin test were of a financial nature (50%). The cohort study included 96 women who were referred from secondary care. In our cohort, 36% of all transfers could have been avoided by implementation of the fibronectin test in secondary care.
Conclusion
The fibronectin test can greatly reduce overtreatment and unnecessary transfer in threatened preterm labour, but implementation remains limited. Costs of the test are an obstacle for the referring hospitals, while implementation prevents unnecessary transport, admission and treatment of pregnant women, giving a potential saving of at least EUR 1,027,930 per year. Inclusion in the Netherlands Society for Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, NVOG) guidelines would be a first step towards wider implementation. Slow implementation exemplifies a more widespread problem: the current reimbursement system does not stimulate such cost-saving innovations.
Analysis of national implementation of the foetal fibronectin test in the diagnostics of threatened preterm labour in the Netherlands, and indication of the possible obstacles and consequences of implementation or no implementation.
Design
National questionnaire, retrospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness calculation.
Methods
We approached all hospitals in the Netherlands (n = 86) with a questionnaire on use of the fibronectin test. We also collected data on women who were referred to the Academic Medical Center (AMC), a tertiary care centre in Amsterdam, with symptoms of threatened preterm labour. We investigated whether the referred patients gave birth within 7 days, and whether unnecessary transfer to a centre with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) could have been avoided by implementation of the fibronectin test in the referring hospital.
Results
The fibronectin test was used in 34% of the hospitals and an additional 17% were in the process of implementation. The most important reasons not to use the fibronectin test were of a financial nature (50%). The cohort study included 96 women who were referred from secondary care. In our cohort, 36% of all transfers could have been avoided by implementation of the fibronectin test in secondary care.
Conclusion
The fibronectin test can greatly reduce overtreatment and unnecessary transfer in threatened preterm labour, but implementation remains limited. Costs of the test are an obstacle for the referring hospitals, while implementation prevents unnecessary transport, admission and treatment of pregnant women, giving a potential saving of at least EUR 1,027,930 per year. Inclusion in the Netherlands Society for Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, NVOG) guidelines would be a first step towards wider implementation. Slow implementation exemplifies a more widespread problem: the current reimbursement system does not stimulate such cost-saving innovations.
| Translated title of the contribution | Fibronectin test in threatened preterm labor: Cost-saving but not yet widely implemented |
|---|---|
| Original language | Dutch |
| Article number | D2134 |
| Journal | Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde |
| Volume | 162 |
| Issue number | 14 |
| Early online date | 6 Jan 2018 |
| Publication status | Published - 3 Apr 2018 |