Cost analysis of one of the first outpatient wound clinics in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To perform, from an insurance perspective, a cost analysis of one of the outpatient community wound care clinics in the Netherlands, the Knowledge Centre in Wound Care (KCWC) at Venray. METHOD: This study involved a cost analysis based on an observational cohort study with a one-year pre-admission and a one-year post-admission comparison of costs. Patients were included when they first consulted the outpatient wound care clinic. Participants were all insured by the same health insurance company, Coöperatie Volksgezondheidszorg (VGZ). A standard six-step procedure for performing cost studies was used to calculate the costs. Given the skewed cost data, non-parametric bootstrapping was used to test for statistical differences. RESULTS: There were 172 patients included in this study. The difference in costs related to wound care between the year before and the year after initial admission to the wound clinic amounted to an average reduction of €2621 (£1873) per patient in the base case analysis. The categories 'general practitioner', 'hospital care', 'mental health care' and 'transport' scored lower, indicating lower costs, in the year after admission to the wound clinic. CONCLUSION: In this study, only the reimbursement data of patients of one health insurance company, and specifically only those made under the 2006 Dutch Health Insurance Act, were available. Because of the observational design, definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding a demonstrated reduction of costs in the year post admission. Nevertheless, this study is a first attempt of a cost analysis of an equipped outpatient wound clinic as an innovative way of responding to the increasing number of chronic wounds in the Netherlands. The calculations show that savings in wound care are possible. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: A possible conflict of interest should be mentioned. First author AALM Rondas, PhD student at Maastricht University, is working at the KCWC wound clinic at Venray in the Netherlands as a physician. However, the research data were provided externally by Coöperatie Volksgezondheidszorg (VGZ) and checked by the academic co-authors, none of whom have a conflict of interest. The authors have no financial or commercial interest to declare.

Definition of infection in chronic wounds by Dutch nursing home physicians.

This study investigated the number and type of chronic wounds actually treated by Dutch nursing home physicians (NHPs). It was also the goal to know how many of the treated chronic wounds they considered infected. The NHPs were asked to choose and rank their top five out of several provided criteria for chronic wound infection. After this, the ranking was compared with the choices an international multidisciplinary Delphi group of wound experts made in 2005. A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted using the information from a self-reported questionnaire in a representative sample of Dutch NHPs. About 361 NHPs (25%) were sent a questionnaire. Of the 361 physicians, 139 (38.5%) filled in and returned the questionnaire of which 121 were valid. Of the NHPs, 73.5% actually treated at least one chronic pressure ulcers (PU), whereas 26.5% did not treat any. Of the responding NHPs,31.6 % treated at least one, but never more than two chronic post surgical wounds , whereas 68.4% of the NHPs treated none [corrected]. Chronic venous leg ulcers, arterial ulcers and diabetic ulcers scored infrequently and less than the other two sorts of chronic wounds. Of the Dutch NHPs, 53% considered that none of the PU infected. The other chronic wounds were judged far less frequently to be infected. Dutch NHPs appeared to use more 'traditional' criteria such as 'puss/abscess' and 'malodour' to identify infection and did not change their criteria by wound type. According to this study, NHPs do not frequently see many chronic wounds. The most frequent type of wounds treated was PU. For NHPs, the identification of infection of all types of chronic wounds is difficult. The use of criteria that is not in line with consensus documents may lead to ineffective treatment and even seriously damage patients: the clinical identification of infection is still dependent on experts' opinion. Further research on triggers for the suspicion of wound infection and the development of an evidence-based guideline is necessary.