economic impact of 2 commercial bowel catheter systems,louis vuitton replica
This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.This study examined the clinical and economic impact of two indwelling bowel catheter systems in hospitalised adults with faecal incontinence. The study was well presented, but had some methodological limitations that might have affected the validity of these conclusions.Type of economic evaluationThis study examined the clinical and economic impact of two indwelling bowel catheter systems in hospitalised adults,longchamp pas cher, with faecal incontinence.Catheter A was a silicone catheter with a collapse resistant annulus, a low pressure retention cuff, and collection bags. It was used for the diversion of faecal matter, to facilitate the collection of faecal matter,polo outlet, to provide access for colonic irrigation, and to administer enemas or medications.Catheter B was a soft silicone catheter tube assembly, with syringe,tory burch flats, and collection bags.Effectiveness data:The clinical evidence was from a multi centre,true religion, open label,louboutin shoes, non randomised observational study of 146 patients,louis vuitton outlet, with 76 receiving catheter A (mean age 61.1 years; 42.1% women) and 70 receiving catheter B (mean age 62.3 years; 37.1% women). Patients were followed up until they left the acute or critical care unit or until 29 days had elapsed from the catheter insertion. Clinicians completed a questionnaire on the ease of product insertion and other catheter characteristics. The endpoints of the analysis included the key outcome,ray ban wayfarer, which was rate of unscheduled bedding and dressing changes. The key outcome was rate of unscheduled bedding and dressing changes.Cost data:The economic analysis included the nursing time for unscheduled bedding and dressing changes and the cost of laundry services. The costs of the two devices were not included in the base case. The resource use data were derived from the sample of patients in the clinical study. The cost of nursing time was based on standard pay scales for intensive care unit personnel in the USA, while the laundry costs (processing, replacement,oakley sunglasses, delivery, and stocking) were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All costs were in US dollars ($) and the price year was 2008.Catheter A was $13.94 cheaper per patient per day than catheter B. When the cost of the catheter was considered,toms outlet, the analysis showed that only if the catheter was used for less than two or three days, would there be a cost advantage of using catheter B instead of catheter A.The rate of bedding or dressing changes per day was 1.20 with catheter A and 1.71 with catheter B. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.004). There were two skin or soft tissue and four urinary tract infections with catheter A and six skin or soft tissue and one urinary tract infection with catheter B. This very low incidence of infection precluded the use of statistical tests.The proportions of clinicians who were very satisfied with the overall performance of the catheter were 84% with catheter A and 80% with catheter B. A clear description of both catheters was given.



valentino outlet Air bag warning light blinks

burberry handbags ISB grad bags Rs 1



coach factory outlet 6...id Excessive Airline Fees