Health Science Reports (Feb 2024)

A budget impact analysis of a powered hybrid mattress to prevent pressure ulcers in the Austrian inpatient setting: An original research

  • Gerald Eichhober,
  • Marco Voit,
  • Franz Meyer,
  • Evelyn Walter

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1887
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 2
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background and Aims Pressure ulcer is a considerable health problem and is associated with an increased hospital length of stay (LOS), nursing effort, costs, and reduced quality of life. The aim of this analysis is to compare the economic, clinical, and nursing benefit after the implementation of the powered hybrid mattress Dyna‐Form Mercury Advance SMARTcare® in 2019 with the situation in 2017 (rental systems Arjo BariAir® and Arjo TheraKair Visio®, and purchased foam mattresses Arjo Simuflex®) using a single center. Methods In the framework of a budget impact analysis, a difference‐in‐difference approach was used to compare pre‐implementation longitudinal data (2017) with post‐implementation data (2019). The longitudinal data comprise the mattress resource use, patient characteristics, and LOS. The care effort was gathered based on a full survey of all 75 members of the nursing staff using the online tool “LimeSurvey.” In this survey, the resource use of the different mattress systems was identified in terms of time (minutes or days). This analysis was performed from the hospital perspective and included direct costs of mattress systems, Austrian diagnostic‐related group costs for the hospital stay and nursing staff costs for 2019. Results Based on 1253 patients “at‐risk,” the total yearly costs implementing the powered hybrid mattress amounts to 654,248€ compared with 901,469€ when using Arjo products. The budget impact shows a cost advantage of 247,221€. Furthermore, the powered hybrid mattress system leads to fewer nursing‐staff time in minutes per year (−1,031,097 min [1,993,204 vs. 3,024,302]); 242€ are saved per patient. Compared with the Arjo products, fewer inpatient cases of pressure ulcers (−44 cases [0 vs. 44]) were documented. Conclusion Despite the higher total outlay of costs associated with the powered hybrid mattress, the long‐term savings potential showed a significant cost advantage per annum for the single center. Therefore, the use of the hybrid mattress leads to considerable economic, clinical, and nursing benefits.

Keywords