ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF NURSING TIME TO REDUCE COSTS AND INCREASE QUALITY OF PRESSURE INJURY PREVENTION IN NURSING HOMES: A COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE TEAM-UP CLINICAL TRIAL
Author(s)
Padula W1, Crawford S1, Kennerly S2, Yap TL3
1University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA, 3Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
OBJECTIVES: Pressure injuries (PrI) in nursing homes (NH) cause significant morbidity and escalating costs. Technology advances may offer nurses a reduced time commitment to prevention while maintaining patients’ safety. Our objective was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of 3 PrI prevention protocols with varied repositioning frequencies to reflect the value of nursing time caring for U.S. NH residents. METHODS: We analyzed repositioning frequency cost-utilities at 2-, 3- and 4-hour intervals to prevent PrIs. A Markov model captured US societal and health sector perspectives over a 1-year time horizon in hourly cycles. Data parameters were abstracted from published literature and the TEAM-UP clinical trial. Model outcomes were driven by nursing time costs associated with prevention protocols. Costs were measured in U.S. dollars, and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were derived for each comparator at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) tested model uncertainty. RESULTS: Repositioning frequencies at 3- and 4-hours were associated with lower projected nursing time costs than the 2-hour frequency care standard. Relative to 2-hour repositioning at a cost of $135,500 and 7.59 QALYs per-patient, 3-hour resulted in $123,369 and 6.47 QALYs, and 4-hour resulted in $117,769 and 6.33 QALYs. The ICERs indicated that 3- and 4-hour intervals were cost-effective relative to 2-hours at ICERs of $10,862/QALY and $14,021/QALY respectively. Nursing time cost is the most sensitive parameter in this model. PSAs demonstrated 4-hour intervals were cost-effective in 100% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Repositioning is an accepted PrI prevention strategy with every 2-hour repositioning defined as standard of care. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of 3- and 4-hour repositioning frequencies demonstrates their potential for reduced labor costs and shifting of human and financial resources to support other aspects of PrI prevention.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-05, ISPOR 2020, Orlando, FL, USA
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue 5, S1 (May 2020)
Code
PIH16
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Treatment Patterns and Guidelines
Disease
Geriatrics, Injury and Trauma