RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the costs of using a transparent polyurethane film (PF) and hydrocolloid dressing (HD) in the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). METHOD: This descriptive, observational, longitudinal, comparative study was conducted in the intensive care units, coronary care unit and medical clinic of a charity hospital in Brazil. Data were collected during a 30-day study period, consisting of physical examination, assessment of risk factors for PU development and application of the Braden scale, which were performed at inclusion in the study and once daily during hospitalisation. Either PF or HD was applied bilaterally in the sacral and trochanteric regions for prevention of PUs in patients at a moderate to high risk of PUs according to the Braden scale, and costs of using PU preventive dressings were estimated. RESULTS: The mean total costs per dressing change per patient when using the HD and PF to prevent PUs were 413.60 BRL and 74.04 BRL, respectively. There were significant between-group differences in mean costs for all variables, except for saline solution and nurse-technician services. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the mean cost per dressing change per patient was lower when using the transparent PF than when using the HD.
Assuntos
Curativos Hidrocoloides/economia , Curativos Oclusivos/economia , Poliuretanos/uso terapêutico , Úlcera por Pressão/terapia , Cicatrização/fisiologia , Brasil , Custos e Análise de Custo , Feminino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
Objetivo: Analisar a relação custo-efetividade de dois tipos de curativos para a prevenção de úlcera por pressão na região sacral. Métodos : Pesquisa de análise secundária, comparativa, que incluiu 25 pacientes dos quais dez utilizaram a cobertura hidrocoloide e 15 o filme transparente, para prevenção de úlcera por pressão na região sacral. Foram contabilizados custos de aquisição com cada tipo de cobertura; verificados desfechos intermediário e final; e foi estimada a relação custo-efetividade. Resultados : A relação custo-efetividade do hidrocoloide para o desfecho intermediário foi de R$174,68 enquanto do filme transparente foi de R$45,74. Para o desfecho final, essa relação foi de respectivamente R$272,00 e R$28,97. Conclusão : O filme transparente foi mais custo-efetivo do que o hidrocoloide na prevenção de úlcera por pressão sacral.
Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness relationship of two types of dressing for prevention of sacral pressure ulcer. Methods : This secondary analysis and comparative study included 25 patients. Of these, 10 used a hydrocolloid dressing and 15 used a transparent film dressing for prevention of sacral pressure ulcer. We measured costs of each dressing type, verified intermediate and final results, and estimated the cost-effectiveness relationship. Results : The cost-effectiveness relationships for the intermediate results were R$174.68 for the hydrocolloid dressing and R$45.75 for the transparent film dressing. For the final result, the values were R$272.00 and R$28.97, respectively. Conclusion : For sacral pressure ulcers, transparent film dressing was cost-effective compared with hydrocolloid dressing.