Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:19:58.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A NURSING-LED INTERMEDIATE CARE UNIT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2001

Gerald Richardson ,
Peter Griffiths ,
Jenifer Wilson-Barnett ,
Karen Spilsbury  and
Lynn Batehup
Gerald Richardson
Affiliation:
University of York
Peter Griffiths
Affiliation:
King's College
Jenifer Wilson-Barnett
Affiliation:
King's College
Karen Spilsbury
Affiliation:
City University
Lynn Batehup
Affiliation:
Marie Curie Cancer Care
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this paper is to examine the costs of introducing a nursing-led ward program together with examining the impact this may have on patients' outcomes.

Methods: The study had a sample size of 177 patients with a mean age of 77, and randomized to either a treatment group (care on a nursing-led ward, n = 97) or a control group (standard care usually on a consultant-led acute ward, n = 80). Resource use data including length of stay, tests and investigations performed, and multidisciplinary involvement in care were collected.

Results: There were no significant differences in outcome between the two groups. The inpatient costs for the treatment group were significantly higher, due to the longer length of stay in this group. However, the postdischarge costs were significantly lower for the treatment group.

Conclusions: The provision of nursing-led intermediate care units has been proposed as a solution to inappropriate use of acute medical wards by patients who require additional nursing rather than medical care. Whether the treatment group is ultimately cost-additive is dependent on how long reductions in postdischarge resource use are maintained.

Keywords

Economic evaluationIntermediate careNursing-led care
Type
RESEARCH NOTE
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 442 - 450
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was funded by Primary Health Care Research and Development in London.