OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the impact of the Belgian Poison Centre (BPC) on national healthcare expenses for calls from the public for unintentional poisonings.
METHODS: The probability of either calling the BPC, consulting a general practitioner (GP) or consulting an emergency department (ED) was examined in a telephone survey (February-March 2016). Callers were asked what they would have done in case of unavailability of the BPC. The proportion and cost for ED-ambulatory care, ED 24-h observation or hospitalisation were calculated from individual invoices. A cost-benefit analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Unintentional cases (n = 485) from 1045 calls to the BPC were included. After having called the BPC, 92.1% did not seek further medical help, 4.2% consulted a GP and 3.7% went to an ED. In the absence of the BPC, 13.8% would not have sought any further help, 49.3% would have consulted a GP and 36.9% would have gone to the hospital. The cost-benefit ratio of the availability of the BPC as versus its absence was estimated at 5.70.
CONCLUSIONS: Financial savings can be made if people first call the BPC for unintentional poisonings.
Language: en
Keywords
Cost–benefit ratio; Decision tree; Healthcare expenses; Poison control centre; Public health; Unintentional poisonings