dc.contributor.authorGeorge, Pradeep Paul
dc.contributor.authorOoi, Chee Kheong
dc.contributor.authorLeong, Edwin
dc.contributor.authorJarbrink, Krister
dc.contributor.authorCar, Josip
dc.contributor.authorLockwood, Craig
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-08T06:14:48Z
dc.date.available2019-01-08T06:14:48Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationGeorge, P. P., Ooi, C. K., Leong, E., Jarbrink, K., Car, J., & Lockwood, C. (2018). Return on investment in blended advanced cardiac life support training compared to face-to-face training in Singapore. Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare, 27(4), 234-242. doi:10.1177/2010105818760045en_US
dc.identifier.issn2010-1058en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10220/47425
dc.description.abstractBackground: Internet adoption during the past decade has provided opportunities for innovation in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training. With pressure on budgets across health care systems, there is a need for more cost-effective solutions. Recently, traditional ACLS training has evolved from passive to active learning technologies. The objective of this study is to compare the cost, cost-savings and return on investment (ROI) of blended ACLS (B-ACLS) and face-to-face ACLS (F-ACLS) in Singapore. Methods: B-ACLS and F-ACLS courses are offered in two training institutes in Singapore. Direct and indirect costs of training were obtained from one of the training providers. ROI was computed using cost-savings over total cost if B-ACLS was used instead of F-ACLS. Results: The estimated annual cost to conduct B-ACLS and F-ACLS were S$43,467 and S$72,793, respectively. Discounted total cost of training over the life of the course (five years) was S$107,960 for B-ACLS and S$280,162 for F-ACLS. Annual productivity loss cost account for 52% and 23% of the costs among the F-ACLS and B-ACLS, respectively. B-ACLS yielded a 160% return on the money invested. There would be 61% savings over the life of the course if B-ACLS were to be used instead of F-ACLS. Conclusion: The B-ACLS course provides significant cost-savings to the provider and a positive ROI. B-ACLS should be more widely adopted as the preferred mode of ACLS training. As a start, physicians looking for reaccreditation of the ACLS training should be encouraged to take B-ACLS instead of F-ACLS.en_US
dc.format.extent9 p.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesProceedings of Singapore Healthcareen_US
dc.rights© 2018 The Author(s). Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).en_US
dc.subjectAdvanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) Courseen_US
dc.subjectBlendeden_US
dc.subjectDRNTU::Science::Medicineen_US
dc.titleReturn on investment in blended advanced cardiac life support training compared to face-to-face training in Singaporeen_US
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.contributor.schoolLee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine)en_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2010105818760045
dc.description.versionPublished versionen_US
dc.contributor.organizationCentre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS)en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record