The costs, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence-associated dermatitis is a common, under-recognized painful skin condition associated with poorer quality of life, increased nurse workloads, and costs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis. DESIGN: Systematic review of quantitative research. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, Econlit, Tufts' Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies on resource use (costs), health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for incontinence-associated dermatitis was conducted. Screening, data extraction, and initial quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers, with disagreements/queries regarding quality settled through consensus with the larger team. Quality evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and results narratively arranged. FINDINGS: Seventeen studies (10 for prevention, one for treatment and six for both prevention and treatment) included. All studies measured resource use from a healthcare provider perspective; 14 quantified resources in monetary terms. Considerable variation existed in the resource use data primarily due to differences in the type of resources counted, selected time horizons, valuation methods, and reporting approaches. Ten studies provided evidence of their intervention to be cost saving (or at least cost avoiding). Five studies on barrier products provided evidence to be cost saving: three for prevention, one for treatment, and one for both prevention and treatment. Two studies of cleanser and barrier products provided evidence to be cost saving for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis. One study found a cleanser to be a cost saving preventative intervention. One bowel management system was found to be cost saving over time only, and one nurse education intervention was found to be cost saving for preventing and treating incontinence-associated dermatitis. One barrier product was found to be cost-effective for preventing and treating the condition. Finally, one study found a cleanser and barrier product was time saving for prevention. None of the studies incorporated a multi-attribute quality of life measure; however, two studies included person-reported outcome measures for pain. A narrow range of resources (mainly products) were considered, and there was limited information on how they were counted and valued. Analyses relating to heterogeneity among patients/hospital wards or health facilities and uncertainty were lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Barrier products are possibly a more cost-effective treatment than others; however, this evidence lacks certainty. Structured health economic evaluations are required for a reliable evidence-base on the interventions for incontinence-associated dermatitis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Most incontinence-associated dermatitis studies lack person-reported outcomes, costs beyond product/staff time, and economic evaluation.

Clinician Knowledge of Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis: A Multisite Survey of Healthcare Professionals in Acute and Subacute Settings.

PURPOSE: This study examined clinicians' knowledge of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) using the Barakat-Johnson Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis Knowledge Tool (Know-IAD). DESIGN: A cross-sectional multicenter survey. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The setting was 6 hospitals across 5 health districts in New South Wales, Australia. The participants were nurses (registered nurses and enrolled nurses), physicians, allied health (occupational therapists, dietitians, and physiotherapists), and students (nursing and allied health). METHODS: Data about IAD knowledge were collected from November 2019 to January 2020. The Know-IAD, an 18-item validated instrument that measures knowledge of IAD in 3 domains (etiology and risk, classification and diagnosis, and prevention and management), was administered to a cross section of eligible clinicians. The participants anonymously completed hard copy surveys. Descriptive and exploratory analyses were conducted to quantify clinicians' knowledge about the etiology and risk, classification and diagnosis, and prevention and management of IAD. A mean knowledge score of 70% was considered to be satisfactory. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve respondents completed the survey. One hundred twenty nine respondents (31.3%) achieved 70% correct responses and greater for the entire set of items. For the etiology and risk domain, 348 respondents (84.5%) obtained a score of 70% correct responses and greater, 67 respondents (16.3%) achieved 70% correct responses and greater for the classification and diagnosis domain, and 84 respondents (20.4%) achieved 70% correct responses and greater for the prevention and management domain. CONCLUSION: Clinicians tend to have low knowledge and recognition of IAD, particularly in the areas of classification and diagnosis along with prevention and management. They tend to have higher knowledge of how IAD is caused and the risk factors. This study has identified knowledge gaps for further education that can improve assessment, prevention, and management of IAD.

Implementing best available evidence into practice for incontinence-associated dermatitis in Australia: A multisite multimethod study protocol.

AIMS: Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is an insidious and under-reported hospital-acquired complication which substantially impacts on patients' quality of life. A published international guideline and the Ghent Global IAD Categorisation Tool (GLOBIAD) outline the best available evidence for the optimal management of IAD. This study aims to implement theguideline and the GLOBIAD tool and evaluate the effect on IAD occurrences and sacral pressure injuries as well as patient, clinician and cost-effectiveness outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study will employ a multi-method design across six hospitals in five health districts in Australia, and will be conducted in three phases (pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation) over 19 months. Data collection will involve IAD and pressure injury prevalence audits for patient hospital admissions, focus groups with, and surveys of, clinicians, patient interviews, and collection of the cost of IAD hospital care and patient-related outcomes including quality of life. Eligible participants will be hospitalised adults over 18 years of age experiencing incontinence, and clinicians working in the study wards will be invited to participate in focus groups and surveys. CONCLUSION: The implementation of health district-wide evidence-based practices for IAD using a translational research approach that engages key stakeholders will allow the standardisation of IAD care that can potentially be applicable to a range of settings. Knowledge gained will inform future practice change in patient care and health service delivery and improve the quality of care for patients with IAD. Support at the hospital, state and national levels, coupled with a refined stakeholder-inclusive strategy, will enhance this project's success, sustainability and scalability beyond this existing project.