Assessing the Acceptability and Cost Consequences of Implementing Elastomeric Devices for Administration of Intravenous Antibiotics at Home: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Stephanie Howard Wilsher, Mary Onoja, Alan Bellinger, Debbie Pyne, Mikyung Kelly Seo, Katherine Cummergen, Elizabeth Kendrick, Saval Khanal
{"title":"Assessing the Acceptability and Cost Consequences of Implementing Elastomeric Devices for Administration of Intravenous Antibiotics at Home: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation","authors":"Stephanie Howard Wilsher,&nbsp;Mary Onoja,&nbsp;Alan Bellinger,&nbsp;Debbie Pyne,&nbsp;Mikyung Kelly Seo,&nbsp;Katherine Cummergen,&nbsp;Elizabeth Kendrick,&nbsp;Saval Khanal","doi":"10.1155/jcpt/6017010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Pressure on NHS services necessitates implementation of innovative solutions to provide appropriate and cost-effective care. This study evaluates the acceptability, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing home medication preparation and elastomeric device filling for the administration of intravenous antibiotics from the UK NHS perspective, focusing on regional implementation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>A mixed-methods design included a targeted literature review, routine patient data, questionnaires tailored to participant groups (community clinicians, remote monitoring clinicians, consultants and patients), and interviews with both patients and clinicians. A total of 24 patients were recruited in Hertfordshire between June and September 2024. Piperacillin with tazobactam (Tazocin) or flucloxacillin was prepared and administered at the patients’ home by trained nurses and delivered by the elastomeric pump over 24 h. Economic evaluations compared this home pathway against three alternative pathways using preprepared medications: hospital inpatient care (hospital), outpatient clinic visits (outpatient) and a hypothetical home visit (hypothetical).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Survey responses were collected from 14 clinicians, five patients and two carers, and interviews were conducted with six clinicians, one patient, and one carer. Patients and carers were satisfied with the home pathway because of the perceived safety and freedom it gave them. Clinicians expressed positive feedback and considered it feasible, provided there was sufficient support for themselves and patients. Concerns were raised about design, ease of filling the elastomeric device and monitoring flow of medication. Other issues related to the type of cannula and concentration of the vials, improvements for care packages, communication and training. The home pathway demonstrated cost savings, with a per-patient cost of £2507.54, significantly lower than the hospital pathway (£6122.70), outpatient pathway (£3603.76), and hypothetical pathway (£4373.37).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, clinicians, patients and carers were pleased with the home pathway, with the additional benefit that the home pathway could be economically and realistically feasible to help the NHS meet the growing demand for high-quality care.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jcpt/6017010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jcpt/6017010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Pressure on NHS services necessitates implementation of innovative solutions to provide appropriate and cost-effective care. This study evaluates the acceptability, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing home medication preparation and elastomeric device filling for the administration of intravenous antibiotics from the UK NHS perspective, focusing on regional implementation.

Method

A mixed-methods design included a targeted literature review, routine patient data, questionnaires tailored to participant groups (community clinicians, remote monitoring clinicians, consultants and patients), and interviews with both patients and clinicians. A total of 24 patients were recruited in Hertfordshire between June and September 2024. Piperacillin with tazobactam (Tazocin) or flucloxacillin was prepared and administered at the patients’ home by trained nurses and delivered by the elastomeric pump over 24 h. Economic evaluations compared this home pathway against three alternative pathways using preprepared medications: hospital inpatient care (hospital), outpatient clinic visits (outpatient) and a hypothetical home visit (hypothetical).

Findings

Survey responses were collected from 14 clinicians, five patients and two carers, and interviews were conducted with six clinicians, one patient, and one carer. Patients and carers were satisfied with the home pathway because of the perceived safety and freedom it gave them. Clinicians expressed positive feedback and considered it feasible, provided there was sufficient support for themselves and patients. Concerns were raised about design, ease of filling the elastomeric device and monitoring flow of medication. Other issues related to the type of cannula and concentration of the vials, improvements for care packages, communication and training. The home pathway demonstrated cost savings, with a per-patient cost of £2507.54, significantly lower than the hospital pathway (£6122.70), outpatient pathway (£3603.76), and hypothetical pathway (£4373.37).

Conclusion

Overall, clinicians, patients and carers were pleased with the home pathway, with the additional benefit that the home pathway could be economically and realistically feasible to help the NHS meet the growing demand for high-quality care.

评估弹性装置用于家庭静脉注射抗生素的可接受性和成本后果:混合方法评估
对NHS服务的压力需要实施创新的解决方案,以提供适当和具有成本效益的护理。本研究从英国NHS的角度评估实施家庭药物制备和弹性装置填充静脉注射抗生素的可接受性、可行性和成本效益,重点是区域实施。方法采用混合方法设计,包括有针对性的文献综述、常规患者数据、针对参与者群体(社区临床医生、远程监测临床医生、咨询医生和患者)量身定制的问卷调查,以及对患者和临床医生的访谈。2024年6月至9月期间,赫特福德郡共招募了24名患者。哌拉西林与他唑巴坦(他唑嗪)或氟氯西林在患者家中由训练有素的护士配制和给药,并通过弹性泵在24小时内给药。经济评估将这种家庭途径与三种使用预先准备药物的替代途径进行了比较:住院治疗(医院)、门诊就诊(门诊)和假设的家访(假设)。调查结果收集了14名临床医生、5名患者和2名护理人员的反馈,并对6名临床医生、1名患者和1名护理人员进行了访谈。病人和护理人员对回家的道路感到满意,因为它给了他们安全感和自由。临床医生表达了积极的反馈,并认为这是可行的,只要对自己和患者有足够的支持。人们提出了关于设计、填充弹性装置的便利性和监测药物流量的担忧。其他问题涉及导管的类型和小瓶的浓度,护理包的改进,沟通和培训。家庭途径显示出成本节约,每位患者的成本为2507.54英镑,显著低于医院途径(6122.70英镑)、门诊途径(3603.76英镑)和假设途径(4373.37英镑)。总体而言,临床医生、患者和护理人员对家庭路径感到满意,并且家庭路径在经济上和现实上可行,可以帮助NHS满足对高质量护理日益增长的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics provides a forum for clinicians, pharmacists and pharmacologists to explore and report on issues of common interest. Reports and commentaries on current issues in medical and pharmaceutical practice are encouraged. Papers on evidence-based clinical practice and multidisciplinary collaborative work are particularly welcome. Regular sections in the journal include: editorials, commentaries, reviews (including systematic overviews and meta-analyses), original research and reports, and book reviews. Its scope embraces all aspects of clinical drug development and therapeutics, including: Rational therapeutics Evidence-based practice Safety, cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of drugs Drug interactions Clinical impact of drug formulations Pharmacogenetics Personalised, stratified and translational medicine Clinical pharmacokinetics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书