Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 243–252 | Cite as

Economic evaluation of nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes compared with standard care: the PRaCTICaL trial

  • R. A. Hernández
  • D. Jenkinson
  • L. ValeEmail author
  • B. H. Cuthbertson
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Objective

Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective.

Methods

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

Results

A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £5,789 for standard care and £7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) −297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was −0.003 (95 % CI −0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient.

Conclusions

A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.

Keywords

Economic evaluation Critical care Rehabilitation Quality of life Cost-effectiveness Cost utility analysis 

JEL Classification

H51 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by a research grant from the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit are funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The views expressed are those of the authors alone.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interests relating to this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Williams, T., Dobb, G., Finn, J.C., Knuiman, M.W., Geelhoed, E., Lee, K.Y., et al.: Determinants of long-term survival after intensive care. Crit. Care Med. 36, 1523–1530 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright, J.C., Plenderleith, L., Ridley, S.A.: Long-term survival following intensive care: subgroup analysis and comparison with the general population. Anaesthesia 58, 637–642 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scottish Intensive Care Society. Annual audit. http://www.sicsag.scot.nhs.uk/ (2007)
  4. 4.
    Cuthbertson, B., Scott, J., Strachan, M., Kilonzo, M., Vale, L.: Quality of life before and after intensive care. Anaesthesia 60, 332–339 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broomhead, R.L., Brett, S.J.: Intensive care follow-up—what has it told us? Crit. Care 6, 411–417 (2002)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crocker, C.: A multidisciplinary follow-up clinic after patients’ discharge from ITU. Br. J. Nurs. 12, 910–914 (2003)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuthbertson, B., Hull, A., Strachan, A., Scott, J.: Post-traumatic stress disorder after critical illness requiring general intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 30, 450–455 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kapfhammer, H.P., Rothenhausler, H.B., Krauseneck, T., Stoll, C., Schelling, G.: Posttraumatic stress disorder and health-related quality of life in long-term survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Psychiatry 161, 45–52 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rattray, J., Johnston, M., Wildsmith, J.A.W.: The intensive care experience: development of the Intensive Care Experience (ICE) Questionnaire. J. Adv. Nurs. 47, 64–73 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scragg, P., Jones, A., Fauvel, N.: Psychological problems following ICU treatment. Anaesthesia 56, 9–14 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Health. Critical care outreach: progress in developing services. www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4091873 (2003)
  12. 12.
    Brooks, N.: Quality of life after intensive care. Nurs. Crit. Care 1, 90–95 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eddlestone, J., White, P., Guthrie, E.: Survival, morbidity, and quality of life after discharge from intensive care. Crit. Care Med. 28, 2293–2299 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lipsett, P.A., Swoboda, S.M., Campbell, K.A., Cornwell, E., Dorman, T., Pronovost, P.: Sickness impact profile score versus a modified shortform survey for functional outcome assessment: acceptability, reliability, and validity in critically ill patients with prolonged intensive care unit stays. J. Trauma 49, 737–743 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niskanen, M., Ruokenen, E., Takala, J., Rissanen, P., Kari, A.: Quality of life after prolonged intensive care. Crit. Care Med. 27, 1132–1139 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schelling, G., Stoll, C., Haller, M., Briegel, J.: Health-related quality of life and posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit. Care Med. 26, 651–659 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ridley, S.A., Chrispin, P.S., Scotton, H., Rogers, J., Lloyd, D.: Changes in quality of life after intensive care: comparison with normal data. Anaesthesia 52, 195–202 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Griffiths, J.A., Barber, V.A., Cuthbertson, B.H., Young, J.D.: A national survey of intensive care follow-up clinics. Anaesthesia 61, 950–955 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Department of Health. Comprehensive critical care: a review of adult critical care services. www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006585 (2000)
  20. 20.
    Cuthbertson, B.H., Rattray, J., Campbell, M., Gager, M., Roughton, S., Smith, A., Hull, A., Breeman, S., Norrie, J., Jenkinson, D., Hernandez, R., Johnston, M., Wilson, E., Waldman, C., on behalf of the PRaCTICaL study Group: The PRaCTICaL study of nurse led, intensive care follow-up programmes for improving long term outcomes from critical illness: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 339, B3723 (2009)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., Dewey, J.E.: How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. Quality Metric Incorporated, Lincoln, RI (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A. A social tariff for EuroQOL of life: results from a general UK General Population Survey. In: Discussion paper 138. Centre for Health Economics, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zigmond, A.S., Snaith, R.P.: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 67, 361–370 (1983)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davidson, J.R., Book, S.W., Colket, J.T.: Assessment of a new self-report scale for PTSD. Psychol. Med. 27, 153–160 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cuthbertson, B.H., Rattray, J., Johnston, M., Wildsmith, J.A., Wilson, E., Hernendez, R., et al.: A pragmatic randomised, controlled trial of intensive care follow up programmes in improving longer-term outcomes from critical illness. The PRACTICAL study. BMC. Health Serv. Res. 23, 116 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scottish Health Services Costs. www.isdscotland.org/health-topics/finance/publications (2011)
  27. 27.
    Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2011. Personal Social Services Research Unit.University of Kent, Canterbury. http://pssru.ac.uk (2012)
  28. 28.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. BMJ Group, London. www.bnf.org/bnf/ (2011)
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cuthbertson, B.H., Scott, J., Strachan, M., Kilonzo, M., Vale, L.: Quality of life before and after intensive care. Anaesthesia 60(4), 332–339 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cuthbertson, B., Roughton, S., Jenkinson, D., MacLennan, G., Vale, L.: Quality of life in the five years after intensive care—a cohort study. Crit. Care 14, R6 (2010)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Hernández
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Jenkinson
    • 2
  • L. Vale
    • 3
    Email author
  • B. H. Cuthbertson
    • 4
  1. 1.Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences and MedicineUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Health Services Research Unit (HSRU), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences and MedicineUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Institute of Health and SocietyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  4. 4.Department of Critical Care MedicineSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options