4.4 Article

A cost and clinical effectiveness analysis among moist wound healing dressings versus traditional methods in home care patients with pressure ulcers

期刊

WOUND REPAIR AND REGENERATION
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 596-601

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12433

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was a cost and clinical effectiveness analysis between moist wound healing dressings and gauze in a homecare set up for the treatment of stage III and IV pressure ulcers up to complete healing. In addition, we assessed the overall economic burden on the Healthcare System. Treatment method for each patient was chosen randomly by using sealed opaque envelopes. The authors monitored the healing progress and recorded treatment costs without interfering with the treatment process. The healing progress was estimated by using surface measurement transparent films. To estimate treatment costs, the authors took into account labor costs, cost of dressings, as well the cost of other materials such as cleansing gauzes, normal saline, syringes, examination gloves, antiseptics and adhesive tape. The patient group under treatment with moist wound healing dressings consisted of 27 men and 20 women aged 75.1 +/- 8,6 and had an average ulcer surface of 43.5 +/- 30.70 cm(2); the patient group under treatment with gauze comprised 25 men and 23 women aged 77.02 +/- 8.02 and had an average ulcer surface 41.52 +/- 29.41 cm(2) (p=0.25, 95% CI, Student's t test). The average healing time for the moist wound healing dressings group' was 85.56 +/- 52.09 days, while 121.4 +/- 52.21 days for the gauze group (p=0.0001, 95% CI, Student's t test). The dressing change frequency per patient was reduced in the moist wound healing dressings group, 49.5 +/- 29.61, compared with a dressing change frequency per patient of 222.6 +/- 101.86 for the gauze group (p=0.0001, 95% CI, Student's t test). The use of moist wound healing dressings had a lower total treatment cost of 1,351 Euro per patient compared with, the use of gauzes (3,888 Euro).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据