Early Prevention of Pressure Ulcers Among Elderly Patients Admitted Through Emergency Departments: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis - 19/10/11
Résumé |
Study objective |
Every year, approximately 6.2 million hospital admissions through emergency departments (ED) involve elderly patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pressure-redistribution foam mattresses on ED stretchers and beds for early prevention of pressure ulcers in elderly admitted ED patients.
Methods |
Using a Markov model, we evaluated the incremental effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-days) and incremental cost (hospital and home care costs) between early prevention and current practice (with standard hospital mattresses) from a health care payer perspective during a 1-year time horizon.
Results |
The projected incidence of ED-acquired pressure ulcers was 1.90% with current practice and 1.48% with early prevention, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 238 patients. The average upgrading cost from standard to pressure-redistribution mattresses was $0.30 per patient. Compared with current practice, early prevention was more effective, with 0.0015 quality-adjusted life-days gained, and less costly, with a mean cost saving of $32 per patient. If decisionmakers are willing to pay $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, early prevention was cost-effective even for short ED stay (ie, 1 hour), low hospital-acquired pressure ulcer risk (1% prevalence), and high unit price of pressure-redistribution mattresses ($3,775). Taking input uncertainty into account, early prevention was 81% likely to be cost-effective. Expected value-of-information estimates supported additional randomized controlled trials of pressure-redistribution mattresses to eliminate the remaining decision uncertainty.
Conclusion |
The economic evidence supports early prevention with pressure-redistribution foam mattresses in the ED. Early prevention is likely to improve health for elderly patients and save hospital costs.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.ICJME.org). Funding for this study was provided in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative. The THETA Collaborative provides technology assessment support for the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee and the Medical Advisory Secretariat at the Ministry. |
|
Please see page 469 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Provide process.asp?qs_id=7093 on this article at the journal's Web site, www.annemergmed.com. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
|
Supervising editor: Melissa L. McCarthy, ScD |
|
Author contributions: LT, JM, LG, and MK conceived the study. BP, LT, JP, JL, LG, LI, and SC collected input data to the cost-effectiveness analysis. JP, JL, LI, and SC conducted analyses of costing data. BP, LI, SC, and MK developed the natural history model and conducted the cost-effectiveness analysis. BP, MP, and MK drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. BP takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
Publication date: Available online August 5, 2011. |
Vol 58 - N° 5
P. 468 - novembre 2011 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?