Economic evaluation of nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes compared with standard care

the PRaCTICaL trial

R A Hernández, D Jenkinson, L Vale, B H Cuthbertson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £5,789 for standard care and £7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 % CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)243-252
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Health Economics
Volume15
Issue number3
Early online date28 Mar 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2014

Fingerprint

Critical Care
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Nurses
Intensive Care Units
Costs and Cost Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Patient Discharge
Health Services
Randomized Controlled Trials
Psychology
Morbidity
Economic evaluation
Intensive care unit
Quality-adjusted life years

Keywords

  • economic evaluation
  • critical care
  • rehabiltation
  • quality of life
  • cost-effectiveness
  • cost utility analysis
  • H51

Cite this

Economic evaluation of nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes compared with standard care : the PRaCTICaL trial. / Hernández, R A; Jenkinson, D; Vale, L; Cuthbertson, B H.

In: European Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 15, No. 3, 04.2014, p. 243-252.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{82da32a4a50f4f6c8efa9514cb5762fc,
title = "Economic evaluation of nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes compared with standard care: the PRaCTICaL trial",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £5,789 for standard care and £7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £2,435 [95 {\%} confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 {\%} CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 {\%} chance that standard care would be considered most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.",
keywords = "economic evaluation, critical care, rehabiltation, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, cost utility analysis, H51",
author = "Hern{\'a}ndez, {R A} and D Jenkinson and L Vale and Cuthbertson, {B H}",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s10198-013-0470-7",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "243--252",
journal = "European Journal of Health Economics",
issn = "1618-7598",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes compared with standard care

T2 - the PRaCTICaL trial

AU - Hernández, R A

AU - Jenkinson, D

AU - Vale, L

AU - Cuthbertson, B H

PY - 2014/4

Y1 - 2014/4

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £5,789 for standard care and £7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 % CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £5,789 for standard care and £7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 % CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.

KW - economic evaluation

KW - critical care

KW - rehabiltation

KW - quality of life

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - cost utility analysis

KW - H51

U2 - 10.1007/s10198-013-0470-7

DO - 10.1007/s10198-013-0470-7

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 243

EP - 252

JO - European Journal of Health Economics

JF - European Journal of Health Economics

SN - 1618-7598

IS - 3

ER -