The cost-effectiveness of multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in older people undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture
This article summarizes the detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of delirium prevention interventions in people undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture. We compared a multi-component delirium prevention intervention with usual care using a model based on a decision tree analysis. The model was used to estimate the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). The robustness of the cost-effectiveness result was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The multi-component prevention intervention was cost-effective when compared to usual care. It was associated with an INMB of £8,180 using a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY. It remained cost-effective in the majority of the deterministic sensitivity analyses and was cost-effective in 96.4 % of the simulations carried out in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. We have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of a multi-component delirium prevention intervention that targets modifiable risk factors for delirium in older people undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture. It is an attractive intervention for practitioners and health care policy makers as they address the double burden of hip fracture and delirium.
KeywordsDelirium Prevention Cost-effectiveness Multi-component intervention
The method and results presented here draw completely from the full version of the NICE clinical guideline 103: the diagnosis, prevention and management of delirium (see reference 1). The guideline was developed by the National Clinical Guideline Centre which is funded by NICE. The important input of the Guideline Development Group is gratefully acknowledged. In the guideline, NICE recommends that a tailored multi-component delirium prevention intervention, delivered by a multidisciplinary team, should be provided in hospitals and in long-term care for people at risk of delirium. The economic evidence presented here was used to support this recommendation. The authors of this article are employed by the organizations for which they have provided contact details. They did not receive additional funding for writing this article. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NICE or the organizations they work for. Anayo Akunne and Sarah Davis were working at the National Clinical Guideline Centre at the time the guideline was developed. We are particularly grateful to Lakshmi Murthy, whose work on the review that underpins the model was important. At the time the guideline was developed, Lakshmi Murthy was a Research Fellow at the National Clinical Guideline Centre.
Conflict of interest
Dr A Akunne, Ms S Davis and Dr M Westby were employed at the National Clinical Guideline Centre when the economic model that underpins this manuscript was developed. The Guideline Centre was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to develop the guideline from which this manuscript was drawn. Prof J Young was involved in a Programme Grant for Delirium Prevention. The awarding institution was the National Institute for Health Research, UK.
- 1.British Orthopaedic Association (2007) The care of patients with fragility fractures. http://www.bgs.org.uk/pdf_cms/pubs/Blue%20Book%20on%20fragility%20fracture%20care.pdf. Accessed Jun 2011
- 3.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2010) Delirium: diagnosis, prevention and management. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG103/Guidance
- 11.U.S.Department of Health and Human Services (2004) CMS statistics. 34 (CMS Pub. No. 03445). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 13.Harari D, Hopper A, Dhesi J, Babic-Illman G, Lockwood L, Martin F (2007) Proactive care of older people undergoing surgery (‘POPS’): designing. embedding, evaluating and funding a comprehensive geriatric assessment service for older elective surgical patients. Age Ageing 36(2):190–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdated
- 20.Personal Social Services Research Unit (2007) Dementia UK: the full report. The Alzheimer’s Society, London. http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/download.php?fileID=2
- 21.Netten A, Bebbington A, Darton R, Forder J, Miles K (1998) 1996 Survey of care homes for elderly people. Final report, PSSRU discussion paper 1423/2. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Canterbury, KentGoogle Scholar
- 22.The NHS Information Centre, Hospital Episode Statistics for England, 2007–08Google Scholar
- 26.Ward S, Lloyd JM, Pandor A et al (2007) A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess 11(14):1–160Google Scholar
- 27.Interim Life Tables, England and Wales, 2005–2007. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-61850. Accessed Jun 2008