Costing pressure ulcer care in an Irish acute care setting: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of using a standardised data collection tool to estimate the cost of stage 2-4 pressure ulcer (PU) care within an acute care setting. METHOD: Data on resource use and cost were obtained through a retrospective survey of nursing and medical notes collecting cost data for individual patients who received care for stage 2-4 PUs. RESULTS: Data for 20 patients (12 male/8 female) were analysed. The average patient age was 69 years (range: 37-95 years). Of this sample, seven patients had hospital-acquired PUs (HAPUs) and 14 patients had community-acquired PUs (CAPU) (one patient had both-in different anatomical areas). Over half of the total sample (55%; n=11) had a stage 2 PU. The average length of stay was 31.8 days (range: 5-119 days). Most of the patients (70%; n=14) had a CAPU. The average cost per patient with PU care was €878 (range: €39-2393). The mean cost for patients with a HAPU was €866 (SD: €1313) versus €911 (SD: €567) for patients with a CAPU. The majority of the cost related to equipment and staff time for treatment. CONCLUSION: Overall, the application of the standardised data collection tool to obtain cost data from retrospective inspection of nursing and medical notes is feasible. The cost of PU care in this sample was high, indicating that these wounds may impose a substantial burden on health systems. The costs varied greatly between patients in the sample, reflecting the complexity of PU care. Furthermore, given that costs increased with the higher PU stages, there is a potential to reduce costs by preventing the development of higher stage PUs. Larger-scale studies are required to understand the cost variation and full economic impact of PU care. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors have no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".