Rachael L Fleurence1. 1. The MEDTAP Institute, UBC, USA. rachael.fleurence@unitedbiosource.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of alternating pressure-relieving devices, mattress replacements, and mattress overlays compared with a standard hospital (high-specification foam mattress) for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers in hospital patients in the United Kingdom was investigated. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate different strategies to prevent or treat pressure ulcers. Three scenarios were evaluated: the prevention of pressure ulcers, the treatment of superficial ulcers, and the treatment of severe ulcers. Epidemiological and effectiveness data were obtained from the clinical literature. Expert opinion using a rating scale technique was used to obtain quality of life data. Costs of the devices were obtained from manufacturers, whereas costs of treatment were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty was explored through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Using 30,000 pounds sterling/QALY (quality-adjusted life year) as the decision-maker's cut off point (the current UK standard), in scenario 1 (prevention), the cost-effective strategy was the mattress overlay at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. In scenarios 2 and 3, the cost-effective strategy was the mattress replacement at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. Standard care was a dominated intervention in all scenarios for values of the decision-maker's ceiling ratio ranging from 5,000 pounds sterling to 100,000 pounds sterling/QALY. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results reflected the high uncertainty surrounding the choice of devices. CONCLUSIONS: Current information suggests that alternating pressure mattress overlays may be cost-effective for the prevention of pressure ulcers, whereas alternating pressure mattress replacements appears to be cost-effective for the treatment of superficial and severe pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of alternating pressure-relieving devices, mattress replacements, and mattress overlays compared with a standard hospital (high-specification foam mattress) for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers in hospital patients in the United Kingdom was investigated. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate different strategies to prevent or treat pressure ulcers. Three scenarios were evaluated: the prevention of pressure ulcers, the treatment of superficial ulcers, and the treatment of severe ulcers. Epidemiological and effectiveness data were obtained from the clinical literature. Expert opinion using a rating scale technique was used to obtain quality of life data. Costs of the devices were obtained from manufacturers, whereas costs of treatment were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty was explored through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Using 30,000 pounds sterling/QALY (quality-adjusted life year) as the decision-maker's cut off point (the current UK standard), in scenario 1 (prevention), the cost-effective strategy was the mattress overlay at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. In scenarios 2 and 3, the cost-effective strategy was the mattress replacement at 1, 4, and 12 weeks. Standard care was a dominated intervention in all scenarios for values of the decision-maker's ceiling ratio ranging from 5,000 pounds sterling to 100,000 pounds sterling/QALY. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results reflected the high uncertainty surrounding the choice of devices. CONCLUSIONS: Current information suggests that alternating pressure mattress overlays may be cost-effective for the prevention of pressure ulcers, whereas alternating pressure mattress replacements appears to be cost-effective for the treatment of superficial and severe pressure ulcers.
Authors: Rosana E Norman; Michelle Gibb; Anthony Dyer; Jennifer Prentice; Stephen Yelland; Qinglu Cheng; Peter A Lazzarini; Keryln Carville; Karen Innes-Walker; Kathleen Finlayson; Helen Edwards; Edward Burn; Nicholas Graves Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Cynthia Iglesias; Jane Nixon; Gillian Cranny; E Andrea Nelson; Kim Hawkins; Angela Phillips; David Torgerson; Su Mason; Nicky Cullum Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-06-01
Authors: Patriek Mistiaen; Andre Ament; Anneke L Francke; Wilco Achterberg; Ruud Halfens; Janneke Huizinga; Henri Post Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Wrechelle Ocampo; Amanda Cheung; Barry Baylis; Nancy Clayden; John M Conly; William A Ghali; Chester H Ho; Jaime Kaufman; Henry T Stelfox; David B Hogan Journal: Adv Skin Wound Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.347