OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary wound care team in the nursing home setting from a health system perspective. METHODS: Pseudo-randomized pragmatic cluster trial with 20-week follow-up involving 342 uncomplicated leg and pressure ulcers in 176 residents located in 44 high-care nursing homes in Melbourne, Australia in 1999-2000. Twenty-one nursing homes (180 wounds in 94 residents) were assigned to the intervention arm and 23 to the control arm (162 wounds in 82 residents). Residents in the intervention arm received standardized treatment from a wound care team comprising of trained community pharmacists and nurses. Residents in the control arm received usual care. RESULTS: More wounds healed during the trial in the intervention arm than in the control arm (61.7% versus 52.5%, P = 0.07). A Cox regression with shared frailty predicted that the chances of healing increased 73% for intervention wounds [95% confidence interval (CI) 20-150%, P = 0.003]. The mean treatment cost was $A616.4 for intervention and $A977.9 for control patients (P = 0.006). Most cost reduction was obtained from decreases in nursing time and waste disposal. The mean cost saving per wound, adjusted for baseline wound severity and random censoring, was $A277.9 (95% CI $A21.6-$A534.1). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized treatment provided by a multidisciplinary wound care team saved costs and improved chronic wound healing in nursing homes. The main source of saving was in the cost of nursing time in applying traditional dressings and in the cost of their disposal.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary wound care team in the nursing home setting from a health system perspective. METHODS: Pseudo-randomized pragmatic cluster trial with 20-week follow-up involving 342 uncomplicated leg and pressure ulcers in 176 residents located in 44 high-care nursing homes in Melbourne, Australia in 1999-2000. Twenty-one nursing homes (180 wounds in 94 residents) were assigned to the intervention arm and 23 to the control arm (162 wounds in 82 residents). Residents in the intervention arm received standardized treatment from a wound care team comprising of trained community pharmacists and nurses. Residents in the control arm received usual care. RESULTS: More wounds healed during the trial in the intervention arm than in the control arm (61.7% versus 52.5%, P = 0.07). A Cox regression with shared frailty predicted that the chances of healing increased 73% for intervention wounds [95% confidence interval (CI) 20-150%, P = 0.003]. The mean treatment cost was $A616.4 for intervention and $A977.9 for control patients (P = 0.006). Most cost reduction was obtained from decreases in nursing time and waste disposal. The mean cost saving per wound, adjusted for baseline wound severity and random censoring, was $A277.9 (95% CI $A21.6-$A534.1). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized treatment provided by a multidisciplinary wound care team saved costs and improved chronic wound healing in nursing homes. The main source of saving was in the cost of nursing time in applying traditional dressings and in the cost of their disposal.
Authors: Kirsten N Corazzini; Ruth A Anderson; Christine Mueller; Joshua M Thorpe; Eleanor S McConnell Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.381
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: Sue L Davies; Claire Goodman; Frances Bunn; Christina Victor; Angela Dickinson; Steve Iliffe; Heather Gage; Wendy Martin; Katherine Froggatt Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Elise Cogo; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Paul A Khan; Geetha Sanmugalingham; Jesmin Antony; Jeffrey S Hoch; Sharon E Straus Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 8.775