Economic Evaluation of Nutrition Support in the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers in Acute and Chronic Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Recent developments in nutrition intervention indicated clinical effectiveness for pressure ulcer (PU) prevention and treatment, but it is important to assess whether they are cost-effective. The aims of this systematic review are to determine the cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of nutrition support in PU prevention and treatment. METHODS: A systematic search of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and statistical models that investigated cost-effectiveness and economic outcomes for prevention and/or treatment of PUs were performed using standard literature and electronic databases. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, which included 3 randomized controlled trials with their companion economic evaluations, 4 model-based, 2 cohort, 1 pre and post, and 1 prospective controlled trial. Risk of bias assessment for all of the uncontrolled or observational trials revealed high or serious risk of bias. Interventions that incorporated specialized nursing care appeared to be more effective in prevention and treatment of PUs, compared with single intervention studies. There is a trend of improved PU healing when additional energy/protein are provided. PU prevention ($250-$9,800) was less expensive than treatment ($2,500-$16,000). Nutrition intervention for PU prevention was cost-effective in 87.0%-99.99% of the simulation models. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential cost-saving and/or cost-effectiveness of nutrition support in the long term, as predicted by the model-based PU prevention studies in the review. Prevention of PU also appears to be more cost-effective than treatment. A multidisciplinary approach to managing PU is more likely to be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of a disease-specific oral nutritional support for pressure ulcer healing.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Oligo Element Sore Trial has shown that supplementation with a disease-specific nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improves pressure ulcer (PU) healing in malnourished patients compared to an isocaloric-isonitrogenous support. However, the use of such a nutritional formula needs to be supported also by a cost-effectiveness evaluation. METHODS: This economic evaluation - from a local healthcare system perspective - was conducted alongside a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial following a piggy-back approach. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of change in PU area at 8 weeks. The cost analysis focused on: the difference in direct medical costs of local PU care between groups and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nutritional therapy related to significant study endpoints (percentage of change in PU area and ≥40% reduction in PU area at 8 weeks). RESULTS: Although the experimental formula was more expensive (mean difference: 39.4 Euros; P < 0.001), its use resulted in money saving with respect to both non-nutritional PU care activities (difference, -113.7 Euros; P = 0.001) and costs of local PU care (difference, -74.3 Euros; P = 0.013). Therefore, given its efficacy it proved to be a cost-effective intervention. The robustness of these results was confirmed by the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The use of a disease-specific oral nutritional formula not only results in better healing of PUs, but also reduces the costs of local PU care from a local healthcare system perspective.

Effectiveness of olive oil for the prevention of pressure ulcers caused in immobilized patients within the scope of primary health care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are considered an important issue, mainly affecting immobilized older patients. These pressure ulcers increase the care burden for the professional health service staff as well as pharmaceutical expenditure. There are a number of studies on the effectiveness of different products used for the prevention of pressure ulcers; however, most of these studies were carried out at a hospital level, basically using hyperoxygenated fatty acids (HOFA). There are no studies focused specifically on the use of olive-oil-based products and therefore this research is intended to find the most cost-effective treatment and achieve an alternative treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The main objective is to assess the effectiveness of olive oil, comparing it with HOFA, to treat immobilized patients at home who are at risk of pressure ulcers. As a secondary objective, the cost-effectiveness balance of this new application with regard to the HOFA will be assessed. The study is designed as a noninferiority, triple-blinded, parallel, multi-center, randomized clinical trial. The scope of the study is the population attending primary health centers in Andalucía (Spain) in the regional areas of Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Cadiz. Immobilized patients at risk of pressure ulcers will be targeted. The target group will be treated by application of an olive-oil-based formula whereas the control group will be treated by application of HOFA to the control group. The follow-up period will be 16 weeks. The main variable will be the presence of pressure ulcers in the patient. Secondary variables include sociodemographic and clinical information, caregiver information, and whether technical support exists. Statistical analysis will include the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, symmetry and kurtosis analysis, bivariate analysis using the Student's t and chi-squared tests as well as the Wilcoxon and the Man-Whitney U tests, ANOVA and multivariate logistic regression analysis. DISCUSSION: The regular use of olive-oil-based formulas should be effective in preventing pressure ulcers in immobilized patients, thus leading to a more cost-effective product and an alternative treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01595347.

Pressure ulcers management: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcer management represents a growing problem for medical and social health care systems all over the world, particularly in European Union countries where the incidence of pressure ulcers in older persons (> 60 years of age) is predicted to rise. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide evidence for the lower impact on economic resources of using advanced dressings for the treatment of pressure ulcers with respect to conventional simple dressings. METHODS: Two different models of analysis, derived from Activity Based Costing and Health Technology Assessment, were used to measure, over a 30-day period, the direct costs incurred by pressure ulcer treatment for community-residing patients receiving integrated home care. RESULTS: Although the mean cost per home care visit was higher in the advanced dressings patient group than in the simple dressings patient one (E 22.31 versus E 16.03), analysis of the data revealed that the cost of using advanced dressings was lower due to fewer home care visits (22 versus 11). CONCLUSION: The results underline the fact that decision-makers need to improve their understanding of the advantages of taking a long-term view with regards to the purchase and use of materials. This could produce considerable savings of resources in addition to improving treatment efficacy for the benefit of patients and the health care system.

Preventing pressure ulcers in long-term care: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are common in many care settings, with adverse health outcomes and high treatment costs. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of evidence-based strategies to improve current prevention practice in long-term care facilities. METHODS: We used a validated Markov model to compare current prevention practice with the following 4 quality improvement strategies: (1) pressure redistribution mattresses for all residents, (2) oral nutritional supplements for high-risk residents with recent weight loss, (3) skin emollients for high-risk residents with dry skin, and (4) foam cleansing for high-risk residents requiring incontinence care. Primary outcomes included lifetime risk of stage 2 to 4 pressure ulcers, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs, calculated according to a single health care payer's perspective and expressed in 2009 Canadian dollars (Can$1 = US$0.84). RESULTS: Strategies cost on average $11.66 per resident per week. They reduced lifetime risk; the associated number needed to treat was 45 (strategy 1), 63 (strategy 4), 158 (strategy 3), and 333 (strategy 2). Strategy 1 and 4 minimally improved QALYs and reduced the mean lifetime cost by $115 and $179 per resident, respectively. The cost per QALY gained was approximately $78 000 for strategy 3 and $7.8 million for strategy 2. If decision makers are willing to pay up to $50 000 for 1 QALY gained, the probability that improving prevention is cost-effective is 94% (strategy 4), 82% (strategy 1), 43% (strategy 3), and 1% (strategy 2). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and economic evidence supports pressure redistribution mattresses for all long-term care residents. Improving prevention with perineal foam cleansers and dry skin emollients appears to be cost-effective, but firm conclusions are limited by the available clinical evidence.

Comparison of pressure ulcer treatments in long-term care facilities: clinical outcomes and impact on cost.

This study compared clinical outcomes and nursing labor costs associated with (a) balsam Peru, hydrogenated castor oil, and trypsin (BCT) ointment; (b) BCT + Other; and (c) Other treatments in 2014 wound episodes occurring in 861 patients (mean 2.34 wounds/patient). Treatment with BCT ointment or BCT + Other was associated with a higher healing rate (P < .05). No Stage 1 or 2 ulcer treated with BCT ointment progressed, compared with 13.8% treated with BCT + Other and 13.4% treated with Other. The reported mean duration of treatment and time to heal were shorter for ulcers treated with BCT ointment, but differences did not reach significance, possibly because of the variability in reported treatment times. Mean daily nursing labor costs were lower for treatment with BCT than Other ($50.8 vs $61.7, P < .05). These data suggest that treatment of Stage 1 or 2 ulcers with BCT may be associated with shorter treatment time and time to heal and a potential reduction in treatment-related nursing labor costs.

Pressure ulcer care: nutritional therapy need not add to costs.

Fewer patients with pressure ulcers in Dutch nursing homes receive nutritional therapy via sip feeds, possibly because of cost concerns. But this therapy would not cost more if it reduced the duration of nursing care by even one day, this paper argues.

Research to inform the strategic management of supply in pressure area care.

The NHS spends an estimated 45 million Pounds each year on products and services directly relating to the prevention and management of pressure sores. The role of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (one of two successor bodies to NHS Supplies) at the most fundamental level is to ensure that the NHS secures maximum value from that expenditure. However, the Agency is also expected to establish and implement an overall framework for the management of purchasing and supply in the NHS--and one that increasingly takes into account the key government themes of efficiency and quality of care. This paper is in two parts. Part A describes the rationale for a more strategic approach to the management of supply at the macro level, and illustrates how the broad principles are being applied to pressure area care. Part B outlines how qualitative research has been used to inform the development of a 'supply strategy' in this field, and discusses the main outputs of this study. The research found significant differences in trusts' approaches to pressure area care, depending on the type, size and specialty of trust and the experiences and views of individuals. The level and profile of expenditure on pressure relieving equipment was similarly diverse. Rental arrangements were favoured over capital purchase in most of the trusts visited, although many had a mixed economy. Common themes were continuity of care, the importance of prevention, value for money and the need for an holistic approach.

What is the paradigm: hospital or home health care for pressure ulcers?

A home health care (HHC) referral should link the patient in a cost-effective fashion to the physician, home care, and instructions regarding ulcer management. Twenty-one patients (mean age, 74.6 years) had stage III pressure ulcers (<100 cm2) and an involved family member at home. Risk and contributing factors included cardiac disease (n = 9), hypertension (n = 14), end-stage renal disease (n = 7), smoking (n = 11), diabetes (n = 8), chronic brain syndrome (n = 14), cerebrovascular accident (n = 5), and above-the-knee amputation (n = 2). Treatment regimens included standard wound care, pressure relief and, where appropriate, culture-specific antibiotics, as well as a rehabilitation program. Home care progressively decreased the frequency of the nurse HHC and physician office visits. Resolution of the pressure ulcer varied from 6 to 32 weeks. Only two patients had progression of their wound and required hospital readmission. The billable fees included: 1) an office visit, $30.00 (medicare reimbursement, $14.00); 2) the HHC nurse visit, $159.00 (medicare reimbursement, $105.00); 3) supplies, $75.00 to $150.00/week (variable reimbursement); 4) hospitalization, $400.00 to $900.00/day; and 5) a chronic-care bed, $400.00 to $750.00/day. HHC, given a responsible support team and an involved family member, was more socially and financially acceptable than an inpatient facility. Intermittent physician visits with HHC proved safe and reliable, with 90 per cent successfully healing their wounds.