Search

Objectives: Falls are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospitalization and an increase in the cost of treatment in hospitals. They contribute to the deterioration of fitness and quality of life, especially among older patients, thus posing a serious social and economic problem. They increase the risk of premature death. Falls are adverse, costly, and potentially preventable. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of avoiding one fall by nurse care provided by the nurses with higher education, from the perspective of the health service provider., Methods: The economic analysis included and compared only the cost of nurse intervention measured by the hours of care provided with higher education in non-surgical departments (40.5%) with higher time spend by nurses with higher education level an increase in the number of hours by 10% (50.5%) to avoid one fall. The time horizon for the study is 1 year (2021). Cost-effectiveness and Cost-benefit analysis were performed. All registered falls of all hospitalized patients were included in the study., Results: In the analyzed was based on the case control study where, 7,305 patients were hospitalized, which amounted to 41,762 patient care days. Care was provided by 100 nurses, including 40 nurses with bachelor's degrees and nurses with Master of Science in Nursing. Increasing the hours number of high-educated nurses care by 10% in non-surgical departments decreased the chance for falls by 9%; however, this dependence was statistically insignificant (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72-1.65; p  = 0.65). After the intervention (a 10% increase in Bachelor's Degrees/Master of Science in Nursing hours), the number of additional Bachelor's Degrees/Master of Science hours was 6100.5, and the cost was USD 7630.4. The intervention eliminated four falls. The cost of preventing one fall is CER = USD 1697.1., Conclusion: The results of these studies broaden the understanding of the relationship among nursing education, falls, and the economic outcomes of hospital care. According to the authors, the proposed intervention has an economic justification., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wieczorek-Wójcik, Gaworska-Krzemińska, Owczarek and Kilańska.)

Background: Readmissions are adverse, costly, and potentially preventable. The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reducing readmissions resulting from missed care, depending on the level of education of nurses, from the perspective of the service provider. Methods: We calculated missed care resulting in additional readmissions based on the longitudinal study conducted between 2012 and 2014, as well as readmissions that could have been potentially prevented by adding a 10% increase in hours of nursing care provided by BSN/MSc nurses for 2014. The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed to calculate the cost-effectiveness of preventing one hospitalization in non-surgical and surgical wards by increasing the number of nursing hours provided by BSN/MSc nurses. Cost−benefit analysis (CBA) was performed, and the CBR (cost−benefit ratio) and BCR (benefit−cost ratio) were calculated. Results: Increasing the number of hours of nursing care (RN) by 10% decreased the chance for an unplanned readmission by 11%; (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.78−1.01; p = 0.08) in non-surgical wards and 43% (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.49−0.67; p < 0.001) in surgical wards. In non-surgical wards, the number of readmissions that were preventable with extra hours provided by BSN/MSc nurses was 52, and the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) was USD 226.1. The number of preventable readmissions in surgical wards was 172, and the CER was USD 54.96. In non-surgical wards, the CBR was USD 0.07, while the BCR was USD 1.4. In surgical wards, the CBR was USD 0.02, and the BCR was USD 4.4. Conclusions: The results of these studies broaden the understanding of the relationship among nursing education, patient readmission, and the economic outcomes of hospital care. According to the authors, the proposed intervention has an economic justification. Hence, the authors recommend it for approval by the service provider.

(1) Background: an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of employing an increased number of nurses with higher education from the perspective of the service provider. (2) Methods: Based on a year-long study results and data collected from a large hospital, we conducted of the costs of preventing one death. The study involved intervention by 10% increase in the percentage of nursing care hours provided by nurses with higher education. The measure of health effects was the cost of avoiding one death (CER). The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was used as the evaluation method. (3) Results: The cost of employing a larger percentage of nurses with higher education amounts to a total of amounts to a USD 11,730.62 an increase of 3.02% as compared to the base costs. The estimated number of deaths that could be prevented was 44 deaths. Mortality per 1000 patient days was 9.42, mortality after intervention was 8.41. The cost of preventing one death by the 10% increase in BSN/MSN NCH percentage in non-surgical wards USD 263.92. (4) Conclusions: increasing the percentage of care hours provided by nurses with tertiary education is a cost-effective method of reducing in-hospital mortality.