Description of impact
Quality of life for patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy is negatively affected by the travel associated with up to 20 regular checks per year at their GP or hospital. Research, led by the University of Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group, was responsible for NICE guidance recommendations approving a Roche-manufactured device for self-testing by patients in both England and Scotland. The recommendations underpinned NHS Trust guidelines for patients and carers, saved time in NHS primary care settings, improved the quality of life for patients and generated commercial benefits. 17,000 patients in the UK use the device and in one NHS Trust with 500 patients, the number of out-patients attendees has halved, avoiding over 55,000 in-patient appointments in a seven-year period.Themes
The research findings described in this case study [1,2] provided the evidence needed for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), to justify the clinical and cost effectiveness for international normalised ratio (INR) self-testing for patients on Warfarin. These findings have underpinned healthcare policy and benefited front-line medical services, patients and commercial companies.The impacts can be summarised under four headings:
1.Enabling clinical guidelines
2.Reducing the burden on NHS primary care
3.Improving the lives of patients
4.Delivering commercial benefit
Impact status | Impact Completed (Open) |
---|---|
Impact date | 2013 → 2020 |
Keywords
- Health
Documents & Links
Related content
-
Research output
-
Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review