Background

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.

Search results

Return on investment in blended advanced cardiac life support training compared to face-to-face training in Singapore