Challenges in prospective observational studies evaluating pressure ulcer costs: how to price the items correctly

• Published in: Journal of wound care Vol. 32; no. 9; pp. 579 - 586
• Main Authors: Pokorná, Andrea, Krupová, Lenka, Benešová, Klára, Mužík, Jan, Jarkovský, Jirí, Búrilová, Petra, Dolanová, Dana, Saibertová, Simona, Klugar, Miloslav, Krupa, Miroslav
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London MA Healthcare 02-09-2023
• Subjects: cost monitoring; wound; wound care; wound healing; wound dressing; pressure ulcers; cost analysis; hospitalisation; healthcare expenses
• ISSN: 0969-0700; 2052-2916
• DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2023.32.9.579

Objective:
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a significant healthcare problem with a negative impact on patients' quality of life and incurring substantial healthcare expenses. Our study aimed to analyse the costs of treating PUs in hospitalised patients in the Czech Republic, in the context of current treatment procedures and price levels, and to pilot-test the detailed methodology developed.
Method:
A prospective, observational, non-interventional study was conducted at the Clinic of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Medicine, the Internal Medicine Department and the Surgical Department of the University Hospital Ostrava. The study included all hospitalised patients with a PU from March–May 2021. Data were collected using the hospital information system. A bottom-up, person-based approach to cost analysis was used, based on a comprehensive cost structure using accurate patient-specific consumption records.
Results:
The length of hospitalisations ranged from 1–31 (mean: 12.7) days. The average cost of PU treatment per hospitalisation was calculated at €1579. The average daily cost of PU treatment was €179, including antibiotic therapy (ATB) and €112 without ATB. Most of the costs were associated with ATB (38.6%) and caregivers' time (35.9%). Based on the results, a predictive model was developed to estimate the cost of treating a hospitalised patient with a PU, which could be used in future research to assess the costs of treating these patients.
Conclusion:
We have faced many challenges in the methodology of preparation of cost analysis (e.g., how to count amorphous topical agents and sprays, how to properly identify PUs, how to price the positioning aids and mattresses, and how to relate the ATB treatment to the PU). This analysis provides important input for developing a comprehensive and more accurate methodology for monitoring PU costs in hospitalised patients, applicable in clinical practice for inpatient healthcare providers.