Economic assessment of pressure sore prevention using a computerized mattress system in patients with spinal cord injury

Abstract

The economic evaluation indicates that the computerized mattress system is advisable for patients with SCI who require assistance for repositioning, but its profitability depends on the employment terms of the nursing manpower. In addition, other possible alternative pressure management systems should be examined, and additional research may be needed to determine the optimal combination of such systems for a spinal cord rehabilitation department.

Economic Evaluations of Strategies to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries

“…Nineteen of these articles provided original data with clear descriptions of interventions, study methods, and the economic outcomes considered and were included in the narrative review. 3,4,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] They are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Two systematic reviews were also identified.…”

“…Ten studies provided economic evaluations (5 costeffectiveness, 3 cost-benefit, 2 both) of approaches to the prevention of PIs. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Favorable outcomes from a bundle of PI prevention strategies were found in 2 studies that based cost estimates on statistical modeling using data from the literature. 15,16 A combination of risk assessment, nutritional support, and repositioning resulted in an estimated net savings of Can $55.12 per patient per day, a 9.3% decrease in PI incidence, and a 0.47% reduction in deaths in 2013.…”

“…[17][18][19][20] In patients with spinal cord injuries requiring assistance with repositioning, a continuous computer-regulated mattress was found to be cost-effective if nurses were not able to frequently reposition patients. 17 Mattress overlays were reported to be a cost-effective intervention compared with replacing mattresses, 17 whereas another study indicated that alternating pressure mattresses offered an economic advantage compared with alternating pressure overlays. 19 An inflated static overlay was found to be less costly and as effective as either a microfluid static overlay or a low-air-loss dynamic mattress with pulsation.…”

“…[22][23][24] Some of these studies used statistical modeling for their economic evaluations, 18,19 whereas others were at least partially based on collected data. 17,20,21 The different methods used and the lack of a standard comparator made it impossible to compare across studies.…”

“…28,29 The costs collected and used in studies to date have been inconsistent. 25,26 Although direct costs associated with the intervention and the care of patients, such as nursing care and consumables, are commonly included, [15][16][17][18][20][21][22][23] some studies did not specifically identify cost components 19 or included only the costs of the intervention. 24 One included the cost of care outside the hospital, 15 and another study incorporated unforeseen costs but did not specify them.…”