13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To compare costs associated with different models of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) delivery with costs of inpatient (IP) care across key infection groups managed via OPAT in the UK.

          Design

          A cost-minimisation design was used due to evidence of similarities in patient and treatment outcomes between OPAT and IP care. A bottom-up approach was undertaken for the evaluation of OPAT associated costs. The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy National Outcomes Registry System was used to determine key infection diagnoses, mean duration of treatment and most frequent antibiotics used.

          Setting

          Several OPAT delivery settings were considered and compared with IP care.

          Interventions

          OPAT models considered were OP clinic model, nurse home visits, self (or carer)-administration by a bolus intravenous, self-administration by a commercially prefilled elastomeric device, continuous intravenous infusion of piperacillin with tazobactam or flucloxacillin with elastomeric device as OP once daily and, specifically for bone and joint and diabetic foot infections, complex outpatient oral antibiotic therapies.

          Results

          Base case and a range of scenario results showed all evaluated OPAT service delivery models to be less costly than IP stay of equivalent duration. The extent of savings varied by OPAT healthcare delivery models. Estimated OPAT costs as a proportion of IP costs were estimated at 0.23–0.53 (skin and soft-tissue infections), 0.34–0.46 (complex urinary tract infections), 0.23–0.51 (orthopaedic infections), 0.24–0.42 (diabetic foot infections) 0.40–0.56 (exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and 0.25–0.42 (intra-abdominal infections). Partial or full complex oral antibiotic therapies in orthopaedic or diabetic foot infections costs were estimated to be 0.13–0.26 of IP costs. Main OPAT costs were associated with staff time and antimicrobial medications.

          Conclusions

          OPAT is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for the treatment of a range of infections in the UK in patients who can be safely managed in a non-IP setting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT): a UK perspective.

          Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is an effective treatment strategy for a wide variety of infections as long as clinical risk is minimized by conforming to practice guidelines. However, its cost-effectiveness has not been established in the setting of the UK National Health Service. We examined the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an OPAT service based in a large UK teaching hospital, predominantly using the outpatient 'infusion centre' and patient/carer administration models of service delivery. Data on clinical activity and outcomes were collected prospectively on 334 episodes of treatment administered by the Sheffield OPAT service between January 2006 and January 2008. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by comparing real costs of OPAT with estimated inpatient costs for these patient episodes incorporating two additional sensitivity analyses. Of the OPAT episodes, 87% resulted in cure or improvement on completion of intravenous therapy. The readmission rate was 6.3%, and patient satisfaction was high. OPAT cost 41% of equivalent inpatient costs for an Infectious Diseases Unit, 47% of equivalent inpatient costs using national average costs and 61% of inpatient costs using minimum inpatient costs for each diagnosis. Using this service model, OPAT is safe and clinically effective, with low rates of complications/readmissions and high levels of patient satisfaction. OPAT is cost-effective when compared with equivalent inpatient care in the UK healthcare setting.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical efficacy, cost analysis and patient acceptability of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT): a decade of Sheffield (UK) OPAT service

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK

              Abstract UK good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) were published in 2012 and 2015 for adult and paediatric patients, respectively. Here we update the initial good practice recommendations in a combined document based on a further review of the OPAT literature and an extensive consultation process. As with the previous good practice recommendations, these updated recommendations are intended to provide pragmatic guidance for new and established OPAT services across a range of settings and to act as a set of quality indicators for service evaluation and quality improvement.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                28 September 2021
                : 11
                : 9
                : e049733
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentScottish Health Technology Group , Healthcare Improvement Scotland , Edinburgh, UK
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Infection/Pharmacy , Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentInfectious Diseases , Queen Elizabeth University Hospital , Glasgow, UK
                [4 ]departmentScottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group , Healthcare Improvement Scotland , Glasgow, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr R A Seaton; andrew.seaton@ 123456ggc.scot.nhs.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2509-0597
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-049733
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049733
                8479950
                34588251
                e3f4dfa2-6e0a-45e6-947c-21261d94bb0f
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 31 January 2021
                : 15 September 2021
                Categories
                Health Economics
                1506
                1701
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                infectious diseases,health economics,organisation of health services,health services administration & management,quality in health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log