BMJ  2005;330:1084 (7 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1084

Letter

Nurse led care

Comment in This week in the BMJ is misleading

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Readers of the paragraph in This week in the BMJ for the paper by Walsh et al are offered the conclusion that investment in intermediate care in community hospitals may be more cost effective than financing nurse led care for post-acute patients in acute hospitals.^{1 2} But the study itself, which confirms existing evidence on the costs of nurse led intermediate care in acute settings,^{3 4} tackles neither the effect nor the cost of intermediate care in community hospitals.

How then can such a conclusion be drawn? Walsh et al do not make this assertion. The author of the comment offers no support. Our own review of the evidence on nurse led intermediate care found no quality evidence for either the effect or cost of intermediate care in community settings.⁵

The BMJ has been at the forefront of setting standards for the reporting of primary research. However, the editors must . . . [Full text of this article]

King's College London, London SE1 8WA peter.griffiths@kcl.ac.uk

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Nurse led intermediate care may not be cost effective in acute hospitals...
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text]

Economic evaluation of nurse led intermediate care versus standard care for post-acute medical patients: cost minimisation analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial

Bronagh Walsh, Andrea Steiner, Ruth M Pickering, and Jilly Ward-Basu
BMJ 2005 330: 699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more >>