We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
The cost of home air-fluidized therapy for pressure sores. A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Family Practice 1991 July
BACKGROUND: Recurrent pressures sores are a serious problem that often cause chronically ill patients to be hospitalized. We hypothesized that home air-fluidized bed therapy may be a safe and effective way to treat these patients, thus avoiding the costs of hospitalization.
METHODS: One hundred twelve patients with 3rd or 4th stage pressure sores were randomly assigned to 36 weeks of either (1) home air-fluidized bed therapy that included the services of a visiting nurse specialist as long as the patient had 3rd or 4th stage sores, or (2) conventional therapy.
RESULTS: Compared with patients in the control group, patients receiving air-fluidized bed therapy spent fewer days in the hospital (11.4 days vs 25.5 days, P less than .01) and used fewer total inpatient resources, as reflected both in charges ($13,263 vs $25,736, P less than .05) and in Medicare DRG and physician payments ($6,646 vs $12,131, P less than .05). Total resources used (inpatient and outpatient) were lower for patients treated with air-fluidized bed therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Clinical outcomes were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Home air-fluidized bed therapy is safe, reduces hospitalizations, is no more costly than alternative therapy, and allows the patients to receive their needed care in a more desirable, nonhospital setting.
METHODS: One hundred twelve patients with 3rd or 4th stage pressure sores were randomly assigned to 36 weeks of either (1) home air-fluidized bed therapy that included the services of a visiting nurse specialist as long as the patient had 3rd or 4th stage sores, or (2) conventional therapy.
RESULTS: Compared with patients in the control group, patients receiving air-fluidized bed therapy spent fewer days in the hospital (11.4 days vs 25.5 days, P less than .01) and used fewer total inpatient resources, as reflected both in charges ($13,263 vs $25,736, P less than .05) and in Medicare DRG and physician payments ($6,646 vs $12,131, P less than .05). Total resources used (inpatient and outpatient) were lower for patients treated with air-fluidized bed therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Clinical outcomes were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Home air-fluidized bed therapy is safe, reduces hospitalizations, is no more costly than alternative therapy, and allows the patients to receive their needed care in a more desirable, nonhospital setting.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Prevention and management of venous thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis.British Journal of Haematology 2024 August 26
Arrhythmogenic Mitral Valve Prolapse: Can We Risk Stratify and Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death?Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review 2024
Antibodies in Autoimmune Neuropathies: What to Test, How to Test, Why to Test.Neurology 2024 August 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app