English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent years, the concept of cost-effectiveness, including medical delivery and health service fee systems, has become widespread in Japanese health care. In the field of pressure ulcer management, the recent introduction of penalty subtraction in the care fee system emphasizes the need for prevention and cost-effective care of pressure ulcer. Previous cost-effectiveness research on pressure ulcer management tended to focus only on "hardware" costs such as those for pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, while neglecting other cost aspects, particularly those involving the cost of labor. Thus, cost-effectiveness in pressure ulcer care has not yet been fully established. To provide true cost effectiveness data, a comparative prospective study was initiated in patients with stage II and III pressure ulcers. Considering the potential impact of the pressure reduction mattress on clinical outcome, in particular, the same type of pressure reduction mattresses are utilized in all the cases in the study. The cost analysis method used was Activity-Based Costing, which measures material and labor cost aspects on a daily basis. A reduction in the Pressure Sore Status Tool (PSST) score was used to measure clinical effectiveness. Patients were divided into three groups based on the treatment method and on the use of a consistent algorithm of wound care: 1. MC/A group, modern dressings with a treatment algorithm (control cohort). 2. TC/A group, traditional care (ointment and gauze) with a treatment algorithm. 3. TC/NA group, traditional care (ointment and gauze) without a treatment algorithm. The results revealed that MC/A is more cost-effective than both TC/A and TC/NA. This suggests that appropriate utilization of modern dressing materials and a pressure ulcer care algorithm would contribute to reducing health care costs, improved clinical results, and, ultimately, greater cost-effectiveness.

nihon rōnen igakkai zasshi

Clinical study using activity-based costing to assess cost-effectiveness of a wound management system utilizing modern dressings in comparison with traditional wound care