Author
Listed:
- Zena Moore
- Seamus Cowman
- John Posnett
Abstract
Aims and objectives To compare pressure ulcer incidence and costs associated with repositioning older individuals in long‐term care using two different repositioning regimes. Background Repositioning has not always been integrated into pressure ulcer preventative methods, with arguments that it is an expensive procedure in terms of personnel and time. Design Participants were randomly allocated to the experimental group (n = 99; repositioned every 3 hours, using the 30° tilt) and the control group (n = 114 standard care, repositioned every 6 hours, using the 90° lateral rotation). The analysis explored the incidence of pressure ulcer development and the cost difference between the two repositioning schedules, over a 4‐week period. Results The mean daily nurse time for repositioning was 18·5 minutes (experimental) and 24·5 minutes (control). Nurse time cost per patient over the study period was €206·6 (experimental) and €253·1 (control), 96·6% of participants (experimental) remained free of pressure ulcers, compared with 88·1% (control). The cost per patient free of ulcer was €213·9 (experimental) and €287·3 (control). Projected annual costs were estimated for the 588 (53·5%) residents in the 12 study sites requiring repositioning. The cost would be €1·59 m (experimental) and €2·10 m (control), a cost difference of €510,000. This represents a difference of 58·8 hours of nurse time, equivalent to approximately 12 full time nurses across the 12 sites. Conclusion Repositioning every 3 hours, using 30° tilt, has been shown to be more effective in less costly in terms of nurse time compared with standard care. Relevance to clinical practice Repositioning individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development makes both economic and clinical sense, thereby supporting the EPUAP/NPUAP 2009 guidelines.
Suggested Citation
Zena Moore & Seamus Cowman & John Posnett, 2013.
"An economic analysis of repositioning for the prevention of pressure ulcers,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(15-16), pages 2354-2360, August.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:15-16:p:2354-2360
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04310.x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:15-16:p:2354-2360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.