Value of hospital resources for effective pressure injury prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

William V Padula, Peter J Pronovost, Mary Beth F Makic, Heidi L Wald, Dane Moran, Manish K Mishra, David O Meltzer, William V Padula, Peter J Pronovost, Mary Beth F Makic, Heidi L Wald, Dane Moran, Manish K Mishra, David O Meltzer

Abstract

Objective: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are localised skin injuries that cause significant mortality and are costly. Nursing best practices prevent pressure injuries, including time-consuming, complex tasks that lack payment incentives. The Braden Scale is an evidence-based stratification tool nurses use daily to assess pressure-injury risk. Our objective was to analyse the cost-utility of performing repeated risk-assessment for pressure-injury prevention in all patients or high-risk groups.

Design: Cost-utility analysis using Markov modelling from US societal and healthcare sector perspectives within a 1-year time horizon.

Setting: Patient-level longitudinal data on 34 787 encounters from an academic hospital electronic health record (EHR) between 2011 and 2014, including daily Braden scores. Supervised machine learning simulated age-adjusted transition probabilities between risk levels and pressure injuries.

Participants: Hospitalised adults with Braden scores classified into five risk levels: very high risk (6-9), high risk (10-11), moderate risk (12-14), at-risk (15-18), minimal risk (19-23).

Interventions: Standard care, repeated risk assessment in all risk levels or only repeated risk assessment in high-risk strata based on machine-learning simulations.

Main outcome measures: Costs (2016 $US) of pressure-injury treatment and prevention, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) related to pressure injuries were weighted by transition probabilities to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $100 000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty.

Results: Simulating prevention for all patients yielded greater QALYs at higher cost from societal and healthcare sector perspectives, equating to ICERs of $2000/QALY and $2142/QALY, respectively. Risk-stratified follow-up in patients with Braden scores <15 dominated standard care. Prevention for all patients was cost-effective in >99% of probabilistic simulations.

Conclusion: Our analysis using EHR data maintains that pressure-injury prevention for all inpatients is cost-effective. Hospitals should invest in nursing compliance with international prevention guidelines.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; health services research; nurses.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
State transition diagram of the Markov model. Patients are admitted to the hospital and determined to be one of five risk states for pressure injury using the Braden score. They then transition through different risk categories until they are safely discharged. Patients who develop a pressure injury (ie, Patient-Safety Indicator #3, PSI03) require acute and chronic care, and potentially surgery to safely exit the model, otherwise the pressure injury could be fatal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier for three risk-assessment strategies related to pressure-injury prevention best practices from a US societal perspective: (a) standard care, (b) repeated risk assessment in all patients or (c) repeated risk assessment in high-risk patients according to the Braden Scale. QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

References

    1. Padula WV, Pronovost PJ. Addressing the multisectoral impact of pressure injuries in the USA, UK and abroad. BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27:171–3. 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007021
    1. Sullivan N, Schoelles KM. Preventing in-facility pressure ulcers as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(5 Pt 2):410–6. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00008
    1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, Haesler E, ed. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Perth, Australia: Cambridge Media, 2014.
    1. Wald HL, Kramer AM. Nonpayment for harms resulting from medical care: catheter-associated urinary tract infections. JAMA 2007;298:2782–4. 10.1001/jama.298.23.2782
    1. CMS Media Relations. CMS to Improve Quality of Care during Hospital Inpatient Stays In: Health D, Services H, eds Washington, DC: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2014.
    1. Waters TM, Daniels MJ, Bazzoli GJ, et al. . Effect of Medicare’s nonpayment for Hospital-Acquired Conditions: lessons for future policy. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:347–54. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5486
    1. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, et al. . The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Nurs Res 1987;36:205???210–10. 10.1097/00006199-198707000-00002
    1. Ayello EA. By the numbers: Braden score interventions. Adv Skin Wound Care 2004;17:150.
    1. Brindle CT. Outliers to the Braden Scale: Identifying high-risk ICU patients and the results of prophylactic dressing use. World Council of Enterostomal Therapists Journal 2010;30:11.
    1. Gadd MM. Braden Scale cumulative score versus subscale scores: are we missing opportunities for pressure ulcer prevention? J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2014;41:86–9. 10.1097/01.WON.0000438017.83110.6c
    1. Padula WV, Gibbons RD, Pronovost PJ, et al. . Using clinical data to predict high-cost performance coding issues associated with pressure ulcers: a multilevel cohort model. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017;24:e95–e102. 10.1093/jamia/ocw118
    1. Qaseem A, Mir TP, Starkey M, et al. . Risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:359–69. 10.7326/M14-1567
    1. Tescher AN, Branda ME, Byrne TJ, et al. . All at-risk patients are not created equal: analysis of Braden pressure ulcer risk scores to identify specific risks. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2012;39:282–91. 10.1097/WON.0b013e3182435715
    1. Russo CA, Steiner C, Spector W. Hospitalizations Related to Pressure Ulcers among Adults 18 Years and Older, 2006. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2008.
    1. Padula WV, Mishra MK, Makic MB, et al. . Improving the quality of pressure ulcer care with prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 2011;49:385–92. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31820292b3
    1. Padula WV, Makic MB, Wald HL, et al. . Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers at Academic Medical Centers in the United States, 2008-2012: Tracking Changes Since the CMS Nonpayment Policy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2015;41:257–63. 10.1016/S1553-7250(15)41035-9
    1. Lyder CH, Wang Y, Metersky M, et al. . Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: results from the national Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:1603–8. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04106.x
    1. Whittington K, Briones R, Prevalence N. and Incidence Study: 6-year sequential acute care data. Adv Skin Wound Care 2004;17:490–4.
    1. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. . Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093–103. 10.1001/jama.2016.12195
    1. Meddings JA, Reichert H, Hofer T, et al. . Hospital report cards for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: how good are the grades? Ann Intern Med 2013;159:505–13. 10.7326/0003-4819-159-8-201310150-00003
    1. Hughes RG. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-based Handbook for Nurses. Rockvillle (MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2008.
    1. Jackson C. Multi-state Markov and hidden Markov models in continuous time. Cran R 2014:v1.4.
    1. Beck JR, Pauker SG. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making 1983;3:419–58. 10.1177/0272989X8300300403
    1. Comfort EH. Reducing pressure ulcer incidence through Braden Scale risk assessment and support surface use. Adv Skin Wound Care 2008;21:330–4. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000323519.08306.ea
    1. Consumer Price Index. 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Occupational Employment Statistics, 2016.
    1. Mackey D. Support surfaces: beds, mattresses, overlays-oh my!. Nurs Clin North Am 2005;40:251–65. 10.1016/j.cnur.2004.09.011
    1. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 2006;26:410–20. 10.1177/0272989X06290495
    1. Padula WV, Mishra MK, Makic MB, et al. . Increased Adoption of Quality Improvement Interventions to Implement Evidence-Based Practices for Pressure Ulcer Prevention in U.S. Academic Medical Centers. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2015;12:328–36. 10.1111/wvn.12108
    1. Padula WV, Davidson PM, Jackson D, et al. . Unintended consequences of quality improvement programs on the prevention of hospital-acquired conditions: Avoiding the temptation to bite into low-hanging fruit. Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management 2018;23:123–7. 10.1177/2516043518777567
    1. Pham B, Stern A, Chen W, et al. . Preventing pressure ulcers in long-term care: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1839–47. 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.473
    1. Pham B, Teague L, Mahoney J, et al. . Early prevention of pressure ulcers among elderly patients admitted through emergency departments: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2011;58:468–78. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.04.033
    1. Pham B, Teague L, Mahoney J, et al. . Support surfaces for intraoperative prevention of pressure ulcers in patients undergoing surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Surgery 2011;150:122–32. 10.1016/j.surg.2011.03.002
    1. Padula WV. Effectiveness and Value of Prophylactic 5-Layer Foam Sacral Dressings to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries in Acute Care Hospitals: An Observational Cohort Study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2017;44:413–9. 10.1097/WON.0000000000000358
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. . Methods for Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.
    1. Kurtzman ET, Buerhaus PI. New Medicare payment rules: danger or opportunity for nursing? Am J Nurs 2008;108:30–5. 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000324370.71532.b7

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi