A US hospital budget impact analysis of a skin closure system compared with standard of care in hip and knee arthroplasty.
budget impact analysis
costs
economic
hip arthroplasty
hospital
knee arthroplasty
postacute care
wound closure
wound dressings
Journal
ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR
ISSN: 1178-6981
Titre abrégé: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101560564
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
entrez:
28
12
2018
pubmed:
28
12
2018
medline:
28
12
2018
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Medicare's mandatory bundle for hip and knee arthroplasty necessitates provider accountability for quality and cost of care to 90 days, and wound closure may be a key area of consideration. The DERMABOND A 90-day economic model was developed assuming 500 annual hip/knee arthroplasties for a typical US hospital setting. In current practice, wound closure methods for the final skin layer were set to 50% sutures and 50% staples. In future practice, this distribution shifted to 20% sutures, 20% staples, and 60% Skin Closure System. Health care resources included materials (eg, staplers, steri-strips, and traditional/barbed sutures), standard or premium dressings, outpatient visits, and home care visits. An Expert Panel, comprised of three orthopedic physician assistants, two orthopedic surgeons, and a home health representative, was used to inform several model parameters. Other inputs were informed by national data or literature. Unit costs were based on list prices in 2016 US dollars. Uncertainty in the model was explored through one-way sensitivity and alternative scenario analyses. The analysis predicted that use of Skin Closure System in the future practice could achieve cost savings of $56.70 to $79.62 per patient, when standard or premium wound dressings are used, respectively. This translated to an annual hospital budgetary savings ranging from $28,349 to $39,809 when assuming 500 arthroplasties. Dressing materials and postoperative health care visits were key model drivers. Use of the Skin Closure System may provide cost savings within hip and knee arthroplasties due to decreases in resource utilization in the postacute care setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Medicare's mandatory bundle for hip and knee arthroplasty necessitates provider accountability for quality and cost of care to 90 days, and wound closure may be a key area of consideration. The DERMABOND
METHODS
METHODS
A 90-day economic model was developed assuming 500 annual hip/knee arthroplasties for a typical US hospital setting. In current practice, wound closure methods for the final skin layer were set to 50% sutures and 50% staples. In future practice, this distribution shifted to 20% sutures, 20% staples, and 60% Skin Closure System. Health care resources included materials (eg, staplers, steri-strips, and traditional/barbed sutures), standard or premium dressings, outpatient visits, and home care visits. An Expert Panel, comprised of three orthopedic physician assistants, two orthopedic surgeons, and a home health representative, was used to inform several model parameters. Other inputs were informed by national data or literature. Unit costs were based on list prices in 2016 US dollars. Uncertainty in the model was explored through one-way sensitivity and alternative scenario analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analysis predicted that use of Skin Closure System in the future practice could achieve cost savings of $56.70 to $79.62 per patient, when standard or premium wound dressings are used, respectively. This translated to an annual hospital budgetary savings ranging from $28,349 to $39,809 when assuming 500 arthroplasties. Dressing materials and postoperative health care visits were key model drivers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Use of the Skin Closure System may provide cost savings within hip and knee arthroplasties due to decreases in resource utilization in the postacute care setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30588049
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S181630
pii: ceor-11-001
pmc: PMC6301301
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1-11Références
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002 Apr;23(4):183-9
pubmed: 12002232
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Feb;88(2):238-42
pubmed: 16434531
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006 Jan;88(1):18-22
pubmed: 16460632
BMJ. 2010 Mar 16;340:c1199
pubmed: 20234041
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec;26(8):1251-8.e1-4
pubmed: 21531114
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;18(10):1060-4
pubmed: 21996071
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Mar 23;12:73
pubmed: 22443109
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Oct;130(4):843-50
pubmed: 23018695
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Apr;28(4):553-6
pubmed: 23114193
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013 Jun;37(3):529-37
pubmed: 23613192
Ann Plast Surg. 2014 Dec;73(6):631-7
pubmed: 23722581
Value Health. 2014 Jan-Feb;17(1):5-14
pubmed: 24438712
Eur Spine J. 2014 Apr;23(4):854-62
pubmed: 24487558
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jan;474(1):47-56
pubmed: 25733009
Int Orthop. 2015 Jul;39(7):1315-9
pubmed: 25787680
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 17;10(4):e0123593
pubmed: 25884444
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016 Feb;17(1):78-88
pubmed: 26407172
Ann Transl Med. 2015 Oct;3(18):268
pubmed: 26605314
J Wound Care. 2016 Jan;25(1):40, 42-5
pubmed: 26762497
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 20;6(1):e009257
pubmed: 26792213
Sci Rep. 2016 Jan 25;6:19764
pubmed: 26805714
J Healthc Qual. 2017 Jan/Feb;39(1):34-42
pubmed: 27183173
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Dec;475(12):2926-2937
pubmed: 28108823
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jun;32(6):1739-1746
pubmed: 28153458
Int Orthop. 2017 Jul;41(7):1295-1305
pubmed: 28493210
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2006 Jun;16(2):124-129
pubmed: 28755123
J Wound Care. 1997 Nov;6(10):463-6
pubmed: 9455271