Cost-effectiveness: seeking value for money in lower extremity wound management.
This article discusses the different methods of evaluating cost in relation to the outcomes of treatment, and reviews the evidence of cost-effectiveness (CE) in the management of chronic leg ulceration. In essence, the CE argument revolves around the need to demonstrate outcomes of treatment in relation to particular levels of financial input by the health providers. High CE allows for either the same number of patients to be treated more efficiently (at a lower cost) or more patients to be treated for the same financial input. A review of medical and nursing databases (Medline, Embase, and Cinahl) identified studies of CE of dressing materials (n = 8), use of compression therapy (n = 4), and other treatments (n = 2). In addition, 5 research groups have undertaken studies to evaluate the relative CE of different systems of care. Overall conclusions are that modern wound dressings provide a more cost-effective alternative to saline gauze, whereas the evidence relating to the use of tissue-engineered skin is less clear. The use of compression bandaging is substantially more cost-effective when compared with a system of care where compression is not systematically offered. The systems that offer compression are not only cost-effective but also lead to reductions in absolute cost. The evaluation of CE is likely to become an ever-increasing part of wound care evaluation as we strive to achieve greater efficiency in the use of scarce health resources.
Franks
Peter J
PJ
Centre for Research & Implementation of Clinical Practice, Faculty of Health & Human Sciences, Thames Valley University, London. peter.franks@tvu.ac.uk
Bosanquet
Nick
N