Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Nephrology (Carlton) ; 10(6): 557-70, 2005 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16354238

ABSTRACT

Dialysis is an expensive therapy, particularly considering its recurrent, protracted nature while patient numbers are also increasing. To afford dialysis for those in need, smarter, more efficient use of limited funds is mandatory. Newer techniques and improved equipment now permit safe, highly effective haemodialysis (HD) at home, alone and while asleep. Indeed, the increase in treatment hours and frequency achieved through nocturnal HD both increase HD efficiency and reduce cardiovascular stress when comparing nocturnal HD (6 nights/week for 8 h/treatment) to conventional daytime HD (4 h/treatment, three times/week). This study compares the expenditure of two distinct HD programmes in the same renal service during the Australian financial year 2003/2004. A conventional satellite HD unit (SHDU) and a nocturnal home HD programme (NHHD(6)) are compared, with both programmes 'notionalised' to 30 patients. The state-derived funding models under which these programmes operate are explained. All wage costs, recurrent expenditure, fixed costs and the estimated costs of building and infrastructure are included. The total NHHD(6) programme expenditure was 33,392 Australian dollars/patient per year (103.82 Australian dollars/treatment) and was 3,892 Australian dollars/patient per year less (a 10.75% saving) when compared with the SHDU expenditure of 36,284 Australian dollars/patient per year (232.58 Australian dollars/treatment). This represented an annual 116,750 Australian dollars programme saving for a 30 patient cohort. Potential additional NHHD(6) savings in erythropoietin, hospitalization and social security dependence were also identified. Home-based therapies are clinically sound, effective and fiscally prudent and efficient. Funding models should reward home-based HD. Health services should encourage home training and support systems, sustaining patients at home wherever possible.


Subject(s)
Hemodialysis Units, Hospital/economics , Hemodialysis, Home/economics , Kidney Failure, Chronic/economics , Australia , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Costs and Cost Analysis , Humans , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy
2.
Hemodial Int ; 7(4): 278-89, 2003 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19379377

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Because home hemodialysis has long been a common Australian support modality, the advent of home-based nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) in Canada stimulated the extension of our existing home- and satellite-based conventional hemodialysis (CHD) programs to NHD. As a result, the first government-funded, home-based, 6-nights-per-week NHD program in Australia began in July 2001. METHODS: Sixteen patients have been trained for NHD; 13 dialyzed at home 8 to 9 hr per night for 6 nights per week, whereas 3 preferred to train for NHD at home using an 8- to 9-hr alternate-night regime. RESULTS: The program experience to March 1, 2003, was 655 patient-weeks. Two patients had withdrawn for transplantation and 2 for social reasons, although 1 continues on alternate-night NHD. There hade been no deaths. Ten patients had dialyzed without partners. All patients ceased phosphate binders at entry. Thirteen of 16 discontinued all antihypertensive drugs. There were no fluid or dietary restrictions. Phosphate was added to the dialysate to prevent hypophosphatemia. Pre- and postdialysis urea and phosphate levels were broadly within the normal ranges. All patients reported restorative sleep; similarly partners reported stable sleep patterns and noted improved mood, cognitive function, and marital relationships in their NHD partners. Preliminary cost analyses show that whereas consumables had doubled, and epoetin and iron expenditures had risen by 28.9%, other pharmaceutical costs had fallen by 47%, and nursing wage costs were 48% of the notional cost had these patients remained on CHD. Three patients on NHD were retired, 7 worked full-time, 3 worked part-time, and 3 drew disability support, whereas previously on CHD, 3 were retired, 3 had worked full-time, 3 had worked part-time, and 7 had drawn disability support. CONCLUSION: We believe that NHD is viable, safe, effective, and well accepted with significant lifestyle benefits and reemployment outcomes. Although initial setup costs are significant, NHD cost advantage over CHD progressively accrues as program numbers exceed 12 to 15 patients.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...