An economic evaluation of the Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) clinical trial.

Resuscitation

School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Published: August 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • Early recognition and response to clinical deterioration can lower the rates of cardiac arrests and ICU admissions; this study tested the effectiveness of a nursing intervention called PRONTO on hospital costs and patient length of stay (LOS).
  • Data was collected from 6065 patients across four hospitals, revealing that the PRONTO intervention not only improved nurses' responses to patients but also led to cost savings and a reduced LOS for those receiving the intervention.
  • Ultimately, the PRONTO intervention resulted in significant savings for hospitals and reduced patient stay by about two days after 12 months, making it a cost-effective strategy from the hospital's perspective.

Article Abstract

Background: Early recognition and response to clinical deterioration reduce the frequency of in-hospital cardiac arrests, mortality, and unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) intervention on hospital costs and patient length of stay (LOS).

Method: The PRONTO cluster randomised control trial was conducted to improve nurses' responses to patients with abnormal vital signs. Hospital data were collected pre-intervention (T) at 6 months (T) and 12 months (T) post-intervention. The economic evaluation involved a cost-consequence analysis from the hospital's perspective. Generalised estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters for regression models of the difference in costs and LOS between study groups and time points.

Results: Hospital admission data for 6065 patients (intervention group, 3102; control group, 2963) were collected from four hospitals for T, T and T. The intervention cost was 69.61 A$ per admitted patient, including the additional intervention training for nurses and associated labour costs. The results showed cost savings and a shorter LOS in the intervention group between T - T and T - T (cost differences T - T: -364 (95% CI -3,782; 3049) A$ and T - T: -1,710 (95% CI -5,162; 1,742) A$; and LOS differences T - T: -1.10 (95% CI -2.44; 0.24) days and T & T: -2.18 (95% CI -3.53; -0.82) days).

Conclusion: The results of the economic analysis demonstrated that the PRONTO intervention improved nurses' responses to patients with abnormal vital signs and significantly reduced hospital LOS by two days at 12 months in the intervention group compared to baseline. From the hospital's perspective, savings from reduced hospitalisations offset the costs of implementing PRONTO.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110272DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intervention group
12
economic evaluation
8
prioritising responses
8
responses nurses
8
nurses deteriorating
8
deteriorating patient
8
patient observations
8
observations pronto
8
pronto intervention
8
nurses' responses
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!