R A Hernández1, D Jenkinson, L Vale, B H Cuthbertson. 1. Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £ 5,789 for standard care and £ 7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £ 2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 % CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £ 20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.
OBJECTIVE: Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £ 5,789 for standard care and £ 7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £ 2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 % CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £ 20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.
Authors: G Schelling; C Stoll; M Haller; J Briegel; W Manert; T Hummel; A Lenhart; M Heyduck; J Polasek; M Meier; U Preuss; M Bullinger; W Schüffel; K Peter Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J R Davidson; S W Book; J T Colket; L A Tupler; S Roth; D David; M Hertzberg; T Mellman; J C Beckham; R D Smith; R M Davison; R Katz; M E Feldman Journal: Psychol Med Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: B H Cuthbertson; J Rattray; M K Campbell; M Gager; S Roughton; A Smith; A Hull; S Breeman; J Norrie; D Jenkinson; R Hernández; M Johnston; E Wilson; C Waldmann Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-10-16
Authors: Lisa R Ulrich; Juliana J Petersen; Karola Mergenthal; Andrea Berghold; Gudrun Pregartner; Rolf Holle; Andrea Siebenhofer Journal: Health Econ Rev Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Oliver J Schofield-Robinson; Sharon R Lewis; Andrew F Smith; Joanne McPeake; Phil Alderson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-02