Socio-economic cost and health-related quality of life of burn victims in Spain

Sánchez, José Luis; Bastida, Julio López; Martínez, Mercedes Melgar; Moreno, José María Martín; Chamorro, J.

doi:10.1016/j.burns.2007.12.011

Cited by 67 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Budgeting for the cost of caring for patients injured in a burn event is an important component of disaster planning. Previous studies investigating the cost of burn care at local institutions have identified potential sources of high expense in burn care management 4–6,13,14 . However, these analyses do not completely apply to the care of patients after a mass casualty incident owing to the extensive amount of hospital resources and manpower required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Analysis of 48 Burn Patients in a Mass Casualty Explosion Treated at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital

Mathews

Cheng

Muller

et al. 2017

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Little is known about the costs of treating burn patients after a mass casualty event. A devastating Color Dust explosion that injured 499 patients occurred on June 27, 2015 in Taiwan. This study was performed to investigate the economic effects of treating burn patients at a single medical center after an explosion disaster. Methods A detailed retrospective analysis on 48 patient expense records at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital after the Color Dust explosion was performed. Data were collected during the acute treatment period between June 27, 2015 and September 30, 2015. The distribution of cost drivers for the entire patient cohort (n=48), patients with a percent total body surface area burn (%TBSA) ≥ 50 (n=20), and those with %TBSA <50 (n=28) were analyzed. Results The total cost of 48 burn patients over the acute 3-month time period was $2,440,688, with a mean cost per patient of $50,848 ±36,438. Inpatient ward fees (30%), therapeutic treatment fees (22%), and medication fees (11%) were found to be the three highest cost drivers. The 20 patients with a %TBSA ≥50 consumed $1,559,300 (63.8%) of the total expenses, at an average cost of $77,965 ± 34,226 per patient. The 28 patients with a %TBSA <50 consumed $881,387 (36.1%) of care expenses, at an average cost of $31,478 ± 23,518 per patient. Conclusions In response to this mass casualty event, inpatient ward fees represented the largest expense. Hospitals can reduce this fee by ensuring wound dressing and skin substitute materials are regionally stocked and accessible. Medication fees may be higher than expected when treating a mass burn cohort. In preparation for a future event, hospitals should anticipate patients with a %TBSA ≥ 50 will contribute the majority of inpatient expenses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Analysis of 48 Burn Patients in a Mass Casualty Explosion Treated at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital

Mathews

Cheng

Muller

et al. 2017

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table S2. Base-case model inputs for quality of life weights and costs (updated to 2012 prices) [36]–[51]. …”

Section: Supplementary Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for increasing the possession of functioning smoke alarms in households with pre-school children: a modelling study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe UK has one of the highest rates for deaths from fire and flames in children aged 0–14 years compared to other high income countries. Evidence shows that smoke alarms can reduce the risk of fire-related injury but little exists on their cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of different interventions for the uptake of ‘functioning’ smoke alarms and consequently for the prevention of fire-related injuries in children in the UK.MethodsWe carried out a decision model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. We used a hypothetical population of newborns and evaluated the impact of living in a household with or without a functioning smoke alarm during the first 5 years of their life on overall lifetime costs and quality of life from a public health perspective. We compared seven interventions, ranging from usual care to more complex interventions comprising of education, free/low cost equipment giveaway, equipment fitting and/or home safety inspection.ResultsEducation and free/low cost equipment was the most cost-effective intervention with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £34,200 per QALY gained compared to usual care. This was reduced to approximately £4,500 per QALY gained when 1.8 children under the age of 5 were assumed per household.ConclusionsAssessing cost-effectiveness, as well as effectiveness, is important in a public sector system operating under a fixed budget restraint. As highlighted in this study, the more effective interventions (in this case the more complex interventions) may not necessarily be the ones considered the most cost-effective.

show abstract

“…It is noteworthy that the direct and indirect financial expenses are high [14][15] and disabilitiestemporary and permanent -are related to the delay in the return to work and higher rate of morbidity and mortality [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%