Long-term catheter management in the community: a population-based analysis of user characteristics, service utilisation and costs in England

BACKGROUND

Long-term urinary catheters are problematic and burdensome for patients, carers and health services. Nursing practice to improve the management of long-term urinary catheters has been held back by a lack of evidence to support policy and practice. Little is known about who uses a catheter long term and the resources and costs needed for their management. Understanding these costs will help to target innovations to improve care. There have been no substantial innovations to urinary catheters or their management recently and no publications to characterise users and costs.

AIM

To describe long-term catheter users and explore catheter-related service use and costs in England.

METHODS

Descriptive information on the characteristics of catheter users and their use of services was obtained from: General Practice records (n = 607), district nursing records (n = 303), questionnaires to patients (n = 333) and triangulated, 2009-2012. Annual service costs (British pounds 2011) were computed.

FINDINGS

Most catheter users (59.6%) were men, nearly three-quarters (71.2%) were over 70 years and 60.8% used a urethral catheter. Women tended to be younger than men and more likely to use a suprapubic catheter. The services used most frequently over 12 months were general practitioner (by 63.1%) and out of hours services (43.0%); 15.5% accessed Accident and Emergency services for urgent catheter-related care. Hospital use accounted for nearly half (48.9%) of total health service costs (mainly due to inpatient stays by 13.6% of participants); catheter supplies/medications were next most costly (25.7%). Half of all costs were accounted for by 14.2% of users. The median annual cost of services used was £6.38, IQR: £344-£1324; district nursing services added approximately a further £200 per annum.

CONCLUSIONS

Finding better ways to reduce catheter problems (e.g. blockage, infection) that cause unplanned visits, urgent or hospital care should be a priority to improve quality of life for long-term catheter users and reduce health service expenditure.

Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness of physical and geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised study (mean age 78 years, 105 male, 433 female) in different rehabilitation settings: physically oriented (187 patients), geriatrically oriented (171 patients), and healthcare centre hospital (control, 180 patients).

MAIN MEASURES

At 12 months post-fracture, we collected data regarding days in rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation hospital treatment, other healthcare service use, number of re-operations, taxi use by patient or relative, and help from relatives.

RESULTS

Control rehabilitation (4945,2€) was significantly less expensive than physical (6609.0€, p=0.002) and geriatric rehabilitation (7034.7€ p<0.001). Total institutional care costs (primary treatment, rehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation hospital care) were lower for control (13,438.4€) than geriatric rehabilitation (17,201.7€, p<0.001), but did not differ between control and physical rehabilitation (15659.1€, p=0.055) or between physical and geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.252). Costs of help from relatives (estimated as 30%, 50% and 100% of a home aid's salary) with physical rehabilitation were lower than control ( p=0.016) but higher than geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.041). Total hip fracture treatment costs were lower with physical (36,356€, 51,018€) than control rehabilitation (38,018€, 57,031€) at 50% and 100% of salary ( p=0.032, p=0.014, respectively). At one year post-fracture, 15D-score was significantly higher in physical rehabilitation group (0.697) than geriatric rehabilitation group (0.586, p=0.008) and control group (0.594, p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering total costs one year after hip fracture the treatment including physical rehabilitation is significantly more cost-effective than routine treatment. This effect could not be seen between routine treatment and treatment including geriatric rehabilitation.