Key result
Person-centred care delivered per protocol to patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure resulted in significantly lower costs than conventional care (cost-saving €863; p=0.026).
Why the study?
Does person-centred care improve cost-utility compared to conventional care in patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure?
Does person-centred care improve cost-utility compared to conventional care in patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure?
Effect estimate: incremental cost-saving of €863
p-value: p=0.026
Person-centred care, when implemented as intended, may reduce costs and improve health-related quality of life in patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure.
May reduce costs with per-protocol person-centred care in worsening HF; leaves open cost-utility confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Costs of care for patients with chronic heart failure have been estimated at between 1% and 2% of the total health care expenditure in Europe and North America. Two-thirds are for inpatient care. Person-centred care (PCC) asserts that patients are persons and should not be reduced to their diseases alone. AIMS: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of PCC when compared with conventional care in patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data for the cost-utility analysis were collected alongside a prospective clinical intervention study with a controlled before and after design from 2008 to 2010. Patient-specific resources used and preference-based health status data were collected at an individual level.Only 63% received PCC as intended illustrating the difficulties of introducing new methods in established organizations. The group intended to have PCC yielded higher costs in comparison with the conventional care group. The incremental cost was estimated as €98. The costs for those who actually received PCC, per protocol (PP) (63%) were significantly (p=0.026) lower than for those in the conventional care group, with an incremental cost-saving of €863. For the first three months, patients in the conventional care group showed decreasing health-related quality of life, with a corresponding improvement in the PCC(PP) group. CONCLUSION: It must be emphasized, however, that these positive effects, both cheaper and somewhat better, were obtained only among those receiving the PCC intervention in its intended form, PCC(PP).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansson et al. (2015) studied worsening chronic heart failure. Person-centred care (PCC) vs. conventional care was evaluated on cost-utility (incremental cost-saving of €863, p=0.026). Person-centred care delivered per protocol to patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure resulted in significantly lower costs than conventional care (cost-saving €863; p=0.026).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: