DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: All inpatient referrals to the CLiP team were recorded over a three-month period and compared to previous audit data from 2017. Four audit standards were assessed: the reporting of referrals, timeliness of response indication of reason for referral and presence of a management plan.
FINDINGS: The compliance of reporting using the CLiP form was 70.1 per cent compared to 28 per cent in the audit data from 2017 after interventions were conducted. Analysis of the completed CLiP form reveals that 89 per cent of referrals were seen within the same working day. All referrals included the reason for referral. The most common reason for referral was for depressive disorders, but post-assessment, delirium was the most common diagnosis. In total, 87.8 per cent satisfied the audit criteria for a completed written care plan.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Specialised CLiP services are relatively new in Malaysia and this is the first paper to examine the quality of such services in the country. Interventions were effective in improving the compliance of reporting using the CLiP database. The findings suggest that the CLiP services are on par with international audit standards. Furthermore, data from this clinical audit can serve as a benchmark for the development of national operating policies in similar settings.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.