BACKGROUND: Recurrent pressures sores are a serious problem that often cause chronically ill patients to be hospitalized. We hypothesized that home air-fluidized bed therapy may be a safe and effective way to treat these patients, thus avoiding the costs of hospitalization. METHODS:One hundred twelve patients with 3rd or 4th stage pressure sores were randomly assigned to 36 weeks of either (1) home air-fluidized bed therapy that included the services of a visiting nurse specialist as long as the patient had 3rd or 4th stage sores, or (2) conventional therapy. RESULTS: Compared with patients in the control group, patients receiving air-fluidized bed therapy spent fewer days in the hospital (11.4 days vs 25.5 days, P less than .01) and used fewer total inpatient resources, as reflected both in charges ($13,263 vs $25,736, P less than .05) and in Medicare DRG and physician payments ($6,646 vs $12,131, P less than .05). Total resources used (inpatient and outpatient) were lower for patients treated with air-fluidized bed therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Clinical outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Home air-fluidized bed therapy is safe, reduces hospitalizations, is no more costly than alternative therapy, and allows the patients to receive their needed care in a more desirable, nonhospital setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recurrent pressures sores are a serious problem that often cause chronically illpatients to be hospitalized. We hypothesized that home air-fluidized bed therapy may be a safe and effective way to treat these patients, thus avoiding the costs of hospitalization. METHODS: One hundred twelve patients with 3rd or 4th stage pressure sores were randomly assigned to 36 weeks of either (1) home air-fluidized bed therapy that included the services of a visiting nurse specialist as long as the patient had 3rd or 4th stage sores, or (2) conventional therapy. RESULTS: Compared with patients in the control group, patients receiving air-fluidized bed therapy spent fewer days in the hospital (11.4 days vs 25.5 days, P less than .01) and used fewer total inpatient resources, as reflected both in charges ($13,263 vs $25,736, P less than .05) and in Medicare DRG and physician payments ($6,646 vs $12,131, P less than .05). Total resources used (inpatient and outpatient) were lower for patients treated with air-fluidized bed therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Clinical outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Home air-fluidized bed therapy is safe, reduces hospitalizations, is no more costly than alternative therapy, and allows the patients to receive their needed care in a more desirable, nonhospital setting.
Authors: Chunhu Shi; Jo C Dumville; Nicky Cullum; Sarah Rhodes; Asmara Jammali-Blasi; Victoria Ramsden; Elizabeth McInnes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-05-10