BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38397.633588.8F, (Published 9 March 2005)

PAPERS

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 1, Andrea Steiner 2, Ruth M Pickering 3, Jilly Ward-Basu 4

1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ
2 Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton
3 Medical Statistics Group, Health Care Research Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD
4 Elderly Care Research Unit, University Department of Geriatric Medicine, Southampton General Hospital

Objective To undertake an economic evaluation of nurse led intermediate care compared with standard hospital care for post-acute medical patients.

Design Cost minimisation analysis from an NHS perspective, comprising secondary care, primary care, and community care, using data from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Setting Nurse led unit and acute general medical wards in large, urban, UK teaching hospital.

Participants 238 patients.

Outcome measure Costs to acute hospital trusts and to the NHS over six months.

Results On an intention to treat basis, nurse led care was associated with higher costs during the initial admission period (nurse led care £7892 ($14 970; 11 503 euros), standard care £4810, difference £3802 (95% confidence interval £1161 to £5002)). During the readmission period, costs were similar (nurse led care £1444, standard care £1879, difference -£435, -£1406 to £536). Total costs at six months were significantly higher (nurse led care £10 529, standard care £7819, difference £2710, £518 to £4903). Sensitivity analyses suggested that the trend for nurse led care to be more expensive was maintained even with substantial cost reductions, although differences were no longer significant.

Conclusion Acute hospitals may not be cost effective settings for nurse led intermediate care. Both inpatient and total costs were significantly higher for nurse led care than for standard care of post-acute medical patients, suggesting that this model of care should not be pursued unless clinical or organisational benefits justify the increased investment.


(Accepted 8 February 2005)

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

Relevant Articles

Intermediate care: policy before evidence
Norman J Vetter
BMJ 2005 331: 320. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Nurse led care: Comment in This week in the BMJ is misleading
Peter Griffiths
BMJ 2005 330: 1084. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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

Nurse led care
Nicky Cullum, Karen Spilsbury, and Gerry Richardson
BMJ 2005 330: 682-683. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Parker, S. G., Fadayevatan, R., Lee, S. D. (2006). Acute hospital care for frail older people. Age Ageing 35: 551-552 [Full text]  
  • (2005). Poster presentations. Thorax 60: ii53-ii120 [Full text]  
  • Vetter, N. J (2005). Intermediate care: policy before evidence. BMJ 331: 320-320 [Full text]  
  • Griffiths, P. (2005). Nurse led care: Comment in This week in the BMJ is misleading. BMJ 330: 1084-1084 [Full text]  
  • Cullum, N., Spilsbury, K., Richardson, G. (2005). Nurse led care. BMJ 330: 682-683 [Full text]  



Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student 

BMJ