The cost of wound care for a local population in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to estimate the cost of wound care in a local population of approximately 590 000 using results from a wound care audit carried out in Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire as a basis. Full results of the audit will be published separately. An audit in June 2005 provided information on patients with wounds and on their treatment. This was combined with representative National Health Service unit costs to produce an estimate of the total cost of wound care in 2005-2006. In all, 1644 patients had a total of 2300 wounds (1.44 per patient). Most (74.1%) were treated in the community by district nurses, 21.2% were treated in hospital and 4.8% were treated in residential or hospice care. More than one in four hospital inpatients (26.8%) had a wound. Median duration was 6-12 weeks. Twenty-four per cent had their wound for 6 months or more, and almost 16% of patients had remained unhealed for a year or longer. One in eight wounds (12.8%) were reported as showing signs of infection. The estimated cost of wound care in 2005-2006 was pound15 million to pound18 million ( pound2.5 million to pound3.1 million per 100 000 population). Caring for patients with wounds required the equivalent of 88.5 full-time nurses and up to 87 hospital beds. Wounds are a significant source of cost to patients as well as the health care system. The most important determinant of cost appears to be wound complications which require hospitalisation or which delay hospital discharge. Reducing costs requires a systematic focus on effective and timely diagnosis, on ensuring treatment is appropriate to the cause and condition of the wound and on active measures to prevent complications and wound-related hospitalisation. These results should be generalisable to other similar populations in the UK and elsewhere.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".