Economic Evaluations of Strategies to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries.
Wrechelle Ocampo, Amanda Cheung, Barry Baylis and 7 others
PMID 28617751WHAT IT FOUND
Preventing pressure injuries is generally more cost-effective than treating them, with savings reported for repositioning and support surfaces.
However, inconsistent study methods and varying cost components make it impossible to compare specific strategies or determine which is most economical.
Key findings
01The costs of hospital-acquired pressure injuries are stage-dependent and high, with a Stage II injury costing approximately Can $44,000 and a Stage IV injury Can $90,000 in one Canadian analysis.
02Economic evaluations of prevention strategies, including pressure redistribution surfaces and nutritional support, have reported cost savings, but the studies used different methods and comparators.
03Systematic reviews concluded that treating pressure injuries is substantially more expensive than preventing them, but noted marked heterogeneity in the methods of published economic evaluations.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review is a narrative summary, not a systematic review with meta-analysis, so it does not provide a pooled estimate of cost-effectiveness. Included studies used heterogeneous methods, perspectives, and cost components, making direct comparison impossible. Most data came from economically developed nations, limiting applicability to other healthcare settings. The review focused only on acute care and primary healthcare centers, excluding long-term care or home settings.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this review as evidence that one specific prevention strategy, such as alternating pressure mattresses, is definitively more cost-effective than another, such as frequent repositioning. The studies used different methods and comparators, so the review only confirms that prevention is generally cheaper than treatment, not which prevention method is best.