A retrospective clinical and economic analysis of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis programme in Western Australia .

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Peritoneal Dialysis International Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-27 DOI:10.1177/08968608231190772
Henco Nel, Fortnum Debbie, Hawkins Narelle, Randall Sean, Chakera Aron
{"title":"A retrospective clinical and economic analysis of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis programme in Western Australia .","authors":"Henco Nel, Fortnum Debbie, Hawkins Narelle, Randall Sean, Chakera Aron","doi":"10.1177/08968608231190772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assisted peritoneal dialysis (aPD) represents an alternative kidney replacement therapy for dialysis-dependent patients whose only other options are prolonged hospitalisations or transfer to in-centre haemodialysis (HD). Most programmes have not examined the role of temporary aPD, and there is limited data surrounding the economic implications of temporary aPD programmes. The main aim of this study was to describe the cost-effectiveness of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis (aAPD) programme, for patients whose only reason to stay in hospital was the temporary inability to independently perform PD at home.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-centre analysis of 45 referrals for aAPD from November 2015 to May 2021. Two groups of patients were enrolled in the study: respite patients already established on PD (to facilitate discharge or prevent admission) and new patients who were not yet trained (to facilitate discharge). To calculate the cost differential, patients were allocated to either staying in hospital or transferring to centre-based HD with comparison to costs on aAPD. Costs were calculated using a healthcare system perspective over the duration of aAPD assistance. Clinical outcomes including peritonitis rate, hospitalisation and mortality were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 1349 episodes of aAPD care were delivered. One thousand forty-two episodes (77%) were for respite patients and 307 episodes (23%) were for new patients awaiting training. The mean duration of assistance was 18 days for pretraining patients and 37 days for respite patients. Overall, the mean length of stay on the programme was 30 days with a range of 1-263 days (SD 43) and 73% of patients graduated to self-care PD. The cost of the aAPD programme was $242 per visit, with an average cost $7260 per patient-episode. The aAPD programme was significantly cheaper than the alternatives, with average hospitalization costs $46,170 per episode, and in-centre HD costs of $9667. $1.497 million was saved over the course of the study. Eleven hospitalisations occurred and the peritonitis rate was 0.8 episodes per patient-year. Two patients died while on aAPD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides the first detailed description of an aAPD respite programme in Australia. We conclude that the implementation of a temporary aAPD programme could lead to a significant reduction in healthcare costs, however peritonitis rates were high.</p>","PeriodicalId":19969,"journal":{"name":"Peritoneal Dialysis International","volume":" ","pages":"203-210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peritoneal Dialysis International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08968608231190772","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Assisted peritoneal dialysis (aPD) represents an alternative kidney replacement therapy for dialysis-dependent patients whose only other options are prolonged hospitalisations or transfer to in-centre haemodialysis (HD). Most programmes have not examined the role of temporary aPD, and there is limited data surrounding the economic implications of temporary aPD programmes. The main aim of this study was to describe the cost-effectiveness of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis (aAPD) programme, for patients whose only reason to stay in hospital was the temporary inability to independently perform PD at home.

Methods: Retrospective, single-centre analysis of 45 referrals for aAPD from November 2015 to May 2021. Two groups of patients were enrolled in the study: respite patients already established on PD (to facilitate discharge or prevent admission) and new patients who were not yet trained (to facilitate discharge). To calculate the cost differential, patients were allocated to either staying in hospital or transferring to centre-based HD with comparison to costs on aAPD. Costs were calculated using a healthcare system perspective over the duration of aAPD assistance. Clinical outcomes including peritonitis rate, hospitalisation and mortality were also assessed.

Results: Overall, 1349 episodes of aAPD care were delivered. One thousand forty-two episodes (77%) were for respite patients and 307 episodes (23%) were for new patients awaiting training. The mean duration of assistance was 18 days for pretraining patients and 37 days for respite patients. Overall, the mean length of stay on the programme was 30 days with a range of 1-263 days (SD 43) and 73% of patients graduated to self-care PD. The cost of the aAPD programme was $242 per visit, with an average cost $7260 per patient-episode. The aAPD programme was significantly cheaper than the alternatives, with average hospitalization costs $46,170 per episode, and in-centre HD costs of $9667. $1.497 million was saved over the course of the study. Eleven hospitalisations occurred and the peritonitis rate was 0.8 episodes per patient-year. Two patients died while on aAPD.

Conclusion: This study provides the first detailed description of an aAPD respite programme in Australia. We conclude that the implementation of a temporary aAPD programme could lead to a significant reduction in healthcare costs, however peritonitis rates were high.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对西澳大利亚州辅助自动腹膜透析计划的临床和经济回顾分析 .
背景:辅助腹膜透析(aPD)是透析依赖患者的一种替代肾脏替代疗法,这些患者唯一的选择是长期住院或转入中心血液透析(HD)。大多数计划都没有研究过临时腹膜透析的作用,而且有关临时腹膜透析计划的经济影响的数据也很有限。本研究的主要目的是描述辅助自动腹膜透析(aAPD)计划的成本效益,该计划适用于住院的唯一原因是暂时无法在家中独立进行腹膜透析的患者:对2015年11月至2021年5月期间转诊的45例自动腹膜透析患者进行回顾性单中心分析。有两组患者被纳入研究:已接受过腹腔镜手术的暂住患者(以方便出院或防止入院)和尚未接受过培训的新患者(以方便出院)。为了计算成本差异,将患者分配为留在医院或转到中心为基础的血液透析,并与APD的成本进行比较。从医疗系统的角度计算了辅助腹膜透析期间的成本。此外,还对腹膜炎发生率、住院率和死亡率等临床结果进行了评估:结果:总共提供了 1349 次腹腔腹膜透析护理。其中 142 次(77%)为临时病人,307 次(23%)为等待培训的新病人。培训前病人的平均援助时间为 18 天,临时病人的平均援助时间为 37 天。总体而言,该计划的平均持续时间为 30 天,持续时间范围为 1-263 天(标 准差为 43 天),73% 的患者毕业后能够自我护理。全麻计划每次就诊的费用为 242 美元,平均每位患者每次就诊的费用为 7260 美元。aAPD 方案的费用明显低于其他方案,平均每次住院费用为 46170 美元,中心内 HD 费用为 9667 美元。在研究过程中节省了 149.7 万美元。有 11 例患者住院,腹膜炎发生率为每名患者每年 0.8 例。两名患者在使用APD期间死亡:本研究首次详细描述了澳大利亚的 aAPD 暂缓治疗计划。我们得出的结论是,实施临时辅助腹膜透析计划可显著降低医疗成本,但腹膜炎的发病率较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Peritoneal Dialysis International
Peritoneal Dialysis International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Peritoneal Dialysis International (PDI) is an international publication dedicated to peritoneal dialysis. PDI welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of peritoneal dialysis from scientists working in the peritoneal dialysis field around the world. Peritoneal Dialysis International is included in Index Medicus and indexed in Current Contents/Clinical Practice, the Science Citation Index, and Excerpta Medica (Nephrology/Urology Core Journal). It is also abstracted and indexed in Chemical Abstracts (CA), as well as being indexed in Embase as a priority journal.
期刊最新文献
Iodine starch test in a peritoneal dialysis-related hydrothorax. Pulsed peritoneal dialysis in an experimental rat model: A first experience. Severe uterovaginal prolapse and start of peritoneal dialysis: Role of colpocleisis surgery. Report of two cases. Colostomy formation in a peritoneal dialysis patient. Establishing a peritoneal dialysis technique survival core outcome measure: A standardised outcomes in nephrology-peritoneal dialysis consensus workshop report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1