Phillips T J
Ostomy Wound Manage. 1996 Jan-Feb;42(1):56-9, 62.
Universal, objective definitions or formulas have not been available for calculating the costs of wounds and measuring cost/benefits of different care methods. Therefore, it is difficult to compare cost effectiveness of different treatments. A literature review revealed confusion concerning the differences between "cost" and "cost effectiveness". The costs of wound care are divided into direct costs (i.e., costs of supplies, surgical interventions, medications, inpatient care) and indirect costs (i.e., assistance with activities of daily living, days lost from work, litigation). Studies of cost effectiveness should measure cost per unit outcome. In wound care studies, outcomes are usually measured according to the goals of treatment. Common problems with published cost effectiveness studies are that cost is often confused with cost effectiveness; there is no standard method of calculating wound care costs; few studies have measured costs to achieve measured treatment outcomes; and outcomes are often measured or reported differently from study to study. In view of this, it is impossible to clarify cost effectiveness of healing, debridement, pain relief, etc. Until universal, objective scales to measure cost effectiveness are available, the clinician must read published studies critically to determine if treatment measures are indeed cost effective.
目前还没有通用的、客观的定义或公式来计算伤口的成本以及衡量不同护理方法的成本效益。因此,很难比较不同治疗方法的成本效益。一项文献综述揭示了在“成本”和“成本效益”之间的差异方面存在混淆。伤口护理的成本分为直接成本(即用品、手术干预、药物、住院护理的成本)和间接成本(即日常生活活动协助、误工天数、诉讼)。成本效益研究应衡量单位结果的成本。在伤口护理研究中,结果通常根据治疗目标来衡量。已发表的成本效益研究的常见问题是,成本常常与成本效益相混淆;没有计算伤口护理成本的标准方法;很少有研究衡量实现所测治疗结果的成本;而且不同研究对结果的测量或报告方式往往不同。鉴于此,无法阐明愈合、清创、缓解疼痛等的成本效益。在有通用的、客观的成本效益衡量标准之前,临床医生必须审慎阅读已发表的研究,以确定治疗措施是否真的具有成本效益。