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.
Int Wound J ; 13(1): 59-64, 2016 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24612698

ABSTRACT

Skin tears are an increasingly common injury occurring in the elderly population and have significant associated morbidity secondary to poor wound healing, prolonged hospital stays and reduced mobility. There has been a shift in practice for the acute management of skin tears within our institution, which has resulted in improved outcomes and reduced morbidity for this common and debilitating injury. Review of past and current practices including cost analyses has led to the establishment of a management protocol for the hospital and wider area health service with the aim to reduce the burden of disease amongst our ever-expanding elderly population.


Subject(s)
Clinical Protocols , Emergency Service, Hospital , Referral and Consultation , Skin/injuries , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Australia , Debridement , Humans , Length of Stay , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Surgical Flaps , Therapeutic Irrigation , Wounds and Injuries/economics
2.
BJU Int ; 113 Suppl 2: 21-8, 2014 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23574626

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs of photoselective vaporisation (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of a Queensland public hospital provider. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare the costs of PVP and TURP. Cost inputs were sourced from an audit of patients undergoing PVP or TURP across three hospitals. The probability of re-intervention was obtained from secondary literature sources. Probabilistic and multi-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty and test the impact of varying key assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, which included equipment, training and re-intervention costs, PVP was AU$ 739 (95% credible interval [CrI] -12 187 to 14 516) more costly per patient than TURP. The estimate was most sensitive to changes in procedural costs, fibre costs and the probability of re-intervention. Sensitivity analyses based on data from the most favourable site or excluding equipment and training costs reduced the point estimate to favour PVP (incremental cost AU$ -684, 95% CrI -8319 to 5796 and AU$ -100, 95% CrI -13 026 to 13 678, respectively). However, CrIs were wide for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost minimisation analysis, there was no significant cost difference between PVP and TURP, after accounting for equipment, training and re-intervention costs. However, PVP was associated with a shorter length of stay and lower procedural costs during audit, indicating PVP potentially provides comparatively good value for money once the technology is established.


Subject(s)
Laser Therapy/economics , Prostate/surgery , Prostatic Hyperplasia/economics , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Transurethral Resection of Prostate/economics , Aged , Costs and Cost Analysis , Decision Support Techniques , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Probability , Queensland , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...