Search

Economic evaluation of specialist nursing interventions is challenging because of the complex nature of interventions and the difficulty of describing nursing outcomes in simple ways. This article discusses data from a study of Macmillan specialist cancer nursing. Resource-use data and nursing-outcome data were collated from 76 case studies of patients referred to 12 specialist cancer and palliative nursing teams (home-based and hospital-based) in the UK. Specific outcomes related to nursing were defined, and cost and nursing outcome data were analysed together. The data suggested that patients who reported better nursing outcomes had a higher proportion of specialist nursing interventions than those reporting poor nursing outcomes (45% versus 25%). Aiso, the overall pattern of health-care use was different for those patients who reported positive nursing outcomes. This suggests that positive nursing outcomes can influence patients' access to other health services. The data supported specific hypotheses regarding ways that specialist nurses can influence the cost-effectiveness of care. These data do not constitute a comparative evaluation study, as no control group was identified. Such results are nevertheless important as this type of data has not been gathered previously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little progress has been made in economic evaluation of specialist cancer and palliative care nursing. A literature review of economic studies of clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) was undertaken to assess how the measurement of economic outcomes has been tackled in the literature to date. The initial search found 400 studies. Abstracts from all the studies were reviewed but only 17 studies met the basic criteria for inclusion, reporting primary cost and outcomes data, and clearly specifying the role of a CNS. All of the studies but one focused on direct patient care rather than other CNS roles and were undertaken alongside effectiveness studies. The economic evaluations considered only a narrow range of costs, but a wide range of outcomes. Specific nursing outcomes were only reported in a minority of studies. None of the studies reported cost-effectiveness ratios. However, CNS interventions were reported to be both less costly and more effective than alternative forms of care, negating the need for further cost-effectiveness analysis. Overall, the papers were not of good quality, reducing the validity of the findings. Robust economic evaluations of the CNS role need to be undertaken. These should involve nursing researchers and practitioners so that evaluations reflect the complex and multidimensional nature of CNS care and meet the required standard of evidence to influence practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]