Making the case for cost-effective wound management

MAKING THE CASE
FOR COST-EFFECTIVE
WOUND MANAGEMENT
an expert working group review
INTERNATIONAL
CONSENSUS? ? 

2 | INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS
MANAGING EDITOR:
Lisa MacGregor
PUBLISHER:
Kathy Day
PUBLISHED BY:
Wounds International
Enterprise House
1–2 Hatfields
London SE1 9PG, UK
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7627 1510
Fax: +44 (0)20 7627 1570
info@woundsinternational.com
www.woundsinternational.com
© Wounds International 2013
This document has been
supported by Biomonde Ltd,
Kinetic Concepts Inc (KCI),
Smith & Nephew, Shire and
Tissue Therapies.
How to cite this document:
International consensus. Making
the case for cost-effective
wound management. Wounds
International 2013. Available
to download from www.
woundsinternational.com
FOREWORD
Clinicians who treat patients with wounds need access to the resources that will enable
them to deliver the best and most appropriate treatments. With economic constraints on
healthcare budgets, in addition to challenges to prove efficacy, budget holders and payors are
increasingly asking for financial justification for the provision of treatment. Clinicians therefore
need to know how to provide such justification to ensure continued provision of appropriate
wound management services, including the implementation of service improvements and new
technologies.
In June 2013, an international group of wound management and health economic experts met
in London to explore the concept of cost-effectiveness and to discuss how to make the case for
cost-effective wound management.
An initial draft based on the group's discussions underwent extensive review by the expert
working group. This was then sent to a wider group for further review. The process has resulted
in this finalised consensus. Quotes through the text summarise pertinent points from the
discussion. The document aims to help clinicians, healthcare budget holders and payors, and
other stakeholders to:
• understand what is meant by 'cost-effective wound management'
• appreciate the different types of economic analysis used in health care to determine cost-effectiveness
• interpret information on the cost and cost-effectiveness of wound management modalities
and protocols
• make an appropriate case for cost-effective wound management in their locality
• set up systems to collect the data needed for the analysis of the cost and cost-effectiveness
of wound management.
Professor Keith Harding
CORE MEETING EXPERT WORKING GROUP
Jan Apelqvist Associate Professor, Department of Endocrinology, University of Skåne (SUS) and Division of Clinical
Sciences, University of Lund, Malmö (Sweden)
Suzana Aron Certified Wound and Ostomy Continence Nurse, Training Manager, Politec Saúde, São Paulo (Brazil)
Marissa Carter President, Strategic Solutions, Inc., Cody, Wyoming (USA)
Helen Edwards Professor and Program Leader, Wound Management Innovation Cooperative Research Centre,
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland
(Australia)
Keith Harding (Chair) Dean of Clinical Innovation, Cardiff University, and Medical Director, Welsh Wound Innovation
Centre, Cardiff (UK)
David Margolis Professor of Dermatology and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(USA)
Dieter Mayer Assistant Professor for Vascular Surgery and Head of Wound Management, University Hospital of
Zurich, Zurich (Switzerland)
Zena Moore Associate Professor, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin (Ireland)
Ceri Phillips Head of Research, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea (UK)
Douglas Queen (Co-Chair) CanCare Consultancy Services, Toronto (Canada)
Nikolai von Schroeders Managing Director, KSB Klinikberatung, Sprockhövel (Germany)
Colin Song, Medical Director Cape Plastic Surgery and Senior Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Singapore General
Hospital (Singapore)
ADDITIONAL EXPERT WORKING GROUP (See Appendix 4, page 18)

MAKING THE CASE FOR COST-EFFECTIVE WOUND MANAGEMENT | 1
Cost-effective healthcare
Our world is one of limited resources, but the tendency of human nature is to want 'more and
better'. The tension between resource availability and demand has always been present in
healthcare systems worldwide, even during periods of relative economic prosperity. Economic
and resource limitations mean that choices have to be made about how money is spent and how
resources are allocated for maximum benefit (Figure 1). Making choices inevitably also involves
making decisions about what not to spend money on, ie on what sacrifices to make. Health
economics has an important role in providing information to those involved in making such
complex and often politically charged decisions.
FIGURE 1 | The challenges
facing healthcare
provision
Do healthcare services always deliver health benefits?
The intention of healthcare services is to deliver health benefits. However, it has been suggested that
up to 25% of all healthcare services provided may be unnecessary1. Furthermore, it has been estimated
that 10–15% of healthcare interventions reduce health status and a similar percentage improve health
status. For the remaining 70–80% of healthcare interventions there is insufficient evidence to determine
effectiveness2.
'In a system with limited resources, health professionals have a duty to establish not only that
they are doing good, but that they are doing more good than anything else that could be done
with the same resources.' Alan Williams (Professor of Health Economics, University of York,
Health Outcomes Conference, 1993)

Challenges in wound management
•
The prevalence and incidence of wounds is likely to continue to increase. This is due in part at least
to the increase in average age of the population along with ongoing increases in the prevalence of
obesity, diabetes and lower extremity arterial disease3,4.
Securing funding for wound management is challenging, especially in the many healthcare systems
where wound management is not recognised as a discrete healthcare field. Gaining funding
involves competing against other healthcare fields that are also seeking financial support and
showing that wound management provides value for money. Demonstrating value for money is
reliant on having data showing that the treatment modality or protocol is clinically effective and
also necessitates detailing the costs of using the modality or protocol.
Collecting such data in wound management is difficult:
■ Data collection is often sporadic or, where collected, poor or inconsistent methodology makes
meta-analysis difficult.
■ Data demonstrating clinical efficacy and effectiveness may be limited or not available.
■ Financial data may be based on measures that do not provide a true indication of cost.
It is clear that when implemented properly wound management that uses appropriate
interventions based on accurate diagnosis delivers benefits to patients, healthcare systems
and society5-9. However, the combination of low rates of accurate wound diagnosis and patchy
implementation of wound management principles unfortunately may result in failed management
and wasted resources and so undermine efforts to show wound management to be a good
use of healthcare funds (Box 1). A further issue is that reimbursement systems can sometimes
disincentivise practitioners by reimbursing products or procedures which are not recommended in
best practice guidelines10.
Even so, there is a positive side to these problems: raising awareness and understanding of
the need to show value for money can drive widened implementation of improved wound
management.
Wound management protocols or interventions shown to be cost-effective by health economic
analysis will only be cost-effective in clinical practice if patients choose and are able and willing
to adhere to that protocol or intervention
BOX 1 | Some of the challenges in the provision of cost-effective wound management
There is lack of awareness that wound management extends beyond the use of dressings to include
interventions directed at the cause of the wound and there is under usage of established standard wound
management principles11,12:
■ An audit in England in 2005 found that 26% of leg and foot wounds had no definite diagnosis13
■ Studies in Denmark and Ireland found that only about half of patients with leg ulcers had undergone
investigations to determine aetiology14,15
■ Studies have shown that 50–60% of patients with venous leg ulcers had not been treated with com-pression13,15
■ Data from the USA shows that diabetic foot ulcer patients received adequate offloading at only 6% of
visits10
■ In the USA, from 2001 to 2010, 2.5 million adult inpatient admissions involved a diabetic foot ulcer16
Lack of
implementation
of best practice
in wound
management
is a significant
contributor to the
economic and
societal burden of
wounds

Cheap no good;
good no cheap
Dr Colin Song
Demystifying cost-effectiveness
Myth: Cost-effective means cheaper or cost saving
Cost-effectiveness is assessed by analyses that relate costs of an intervention or treatment to
the outcomes produced. Cost-effectiveness is relative: an apparently expensive intervention may
be cost-effective in comparison with a cheaper alternative if the benefits gained are greater. In
general, there is an increased cost for an increased benefit.
Myth: An intervention is either cost-effective or not cost-effective
Some healthcare bodies use thresholds to determine cost-effectiveness, eg in the UK the
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses a threshold of less than £20,000–
£30,000/QALY as indicative of cost-effectiveness17. However, cost-effectiveness is compara-tive:
an intervention can be shown to be more or less cost-effective than another intervention.
Nonetheless, extreme care is needed to ensure comparability of analyses of cost-effectiveness
because of high variability in the assumptions and methodologies used.
Myth: Evidence of cost-effectiveness in wound management is sparser and more difficult to
acquire than in other areas of healthcare
The evidence base for cost-effectiveness in all areas of healthcare is somewhat limited and is no
worse in the field of wound management than any other. Reversing the situation will be reliant on
improving data collection and understanding of the need for and uses of health economic analy-ses.
It is important that improved data collection is underpinned by wider education of clinicians
in implementation of best practice in wound management.
Myth: Analysis of cost-effectiveness is too difficult and time-consuming to undertake
Limited research budgets mean that health economic analyses need to be focused on areas
where they will be most beneficial, ie where outcomes are poorest, to see which interventions or
diagnostic tools might have the greatest impact.
Improvements in data collection will aid the process of determining the cost-effectiveness of
wound management products. Institutions that invest in data collection may find that they reap
financial benefits by enabling such analyses.
Involvement of health economists in the planning, execution and analysis of clinical trials is
essential to ensure that the potential economic impact of the intervention being explored has
been evaluated. Clearly such information is valuable to those who may be the ultimate decision
makers on whether the intervention is reimbursed or not.
Myth: A favourable cost-effectiveness analysis will in itself gain the intervention funding or
reimbursement and adoption into clinical practice and is the only parameter of interest to
payors
In reality, even if an intervention has a favourable cost-effectiveness analysis many other factors
influence whether it is adopted into practice. When lobbying for funding or adoption of an inter-vention,
the perspective and needs of each stakeholder or funder involved need to be considered.
Being cost-effective is sometimes equated with being inexpensive or cost-saving, but often this
is not the case. Broadly, if a healthcare product works and the cost is reasonable, it is likely to
be cost-effective •

What is cost-effectiveness?
The phrase 'cost-effective' means that something is "effective or productive in relation to its cost"18.
In healthcare, a cost-effective intervention provides clinical benefits at a reasonable cost, and the
benefits provided exceed those that would be gained if the resources were used elsewhere19.
In health economics, the cost-effectiveness analysis is one of several formal methods of assessing
the value for money provided by clinical interventions (Table 1). However, cost-effectiveness is also
used as a blanket term for all types of economic evaluation of healthcare20 and as such may be
confused with cost itself21. All of the analyses described in Table 1 require an assessment of costs of the
health condition.
Some of the terms used in health economics may have multiple meanings in everyday
language. Therefore, it is important that the meanings of the terms in use are explained clearly
to avoid misinterpretation •
Type of analysis Details Measure of analysis Comments
Cost or burden of
illness
Determines how much a
particular disease costs
individuals, the healthcare
system, the economy and
society
Total cost ■ Only gives an indication of the magnitude of financial
impact of the condition being investigated
■ Does not indicate 'value for money'
Cost-minimisation Measures the costs of
treatments with identical
outcomes
Cost of the treatments; the
difference in costs between
different treatments can be
calculated
■ Assumes that the outcomes of each treatment are exactly
identical
■ The lowest cost is the cheapest way of achieving the
outcome
■ Not often used as outcomes are rarely truly equivalent
Cost-effectiveness* Measures the costs of
achieving a defined unit of
outcome, eg cost per wound
healed or amputation avoided
or life year gained
Cost-effectiveness = cost/per
unit of outcome
Incremental cost-effectiveness
ratio (ICER) = the difference in
the cost of treatments/difference
in benefits between treatments
■ The lowest CE generally indicates the most efficient use of
resources
■ The ICER indicates how much more (or less) than an exist-ing
treatment a new more effective treatment would cost
for additional benefits
■ The most widely used form of analysis
■ Can be used to compare interventions within a disease
type, eg to compare dressings for treating a diabetic foot
ulcer
Cost-utility Measures costs in terms of
survival and quality of life
Cost per quality-adjusted life year
(QALY)
A QALY is a measure that
combines quality and quantity
of life
■ Use of the QALY allows comparisons to be made between
different areas of healthcare, eg between a treatment for
diabetic foot ulcers and a treatment for cancer
■ Required form of analysis in some countries because it can
be used for wider comparisons
■ Discouraged by law in the USA because of the political
difficulties of making choices between different patient
groups and the fear of healthcare rationing
Cost-benefit Measures both costs and
benefits in monetary terms
Comparison of costs, eg if cost
of treatment is less than the
monetary value of the benefit,
then the treatment is acceptable
■ Allows for comparisons across all areas of healthcare and
with other areas such as education or transport
■ Infrequently used because of the practical and ethical
problems of assigning monetary value to health outcomes
Cost-consequences All outcomes are quantified
and related to the costs for
each of a range of alternative
courses of action
Comparison of costs across a
range of outcomes that may arise
from different courses of action
■ Gaining support from health economists
■ Extension of cost-effectiveness analysis
■ Does not restrict the outcomes to a single measure
■ Easier to understand by decision makers than cost-utility
*Sometimes also known as a cost-benefit study - see definition of cost-benefit study.
TABLE 1 | Types of health economic analysis22-26
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a health intervention is about examining the balance
• between cost and benefit

Understanding costs
Costs can be divided into:
■ Direct costs —
those costs that are incurred by the healthcare system and/or the patient as a direct
result of the disease, eg a wound, and its associated treatment (Table 2).
■ Indirect costs —
less immediately obvious and include the losses to society caused by the disease
and its treatment, eg inability to work or to engage in social activities.
Definitions of direct and indirect costs may vary and it is prudent to check what costs are included in an
individual analysis25,26.
Direct costs are easier to collect than are indirect costs, but analyses including just direct costs
may not be fully representative of the economic impact of a wound or its treatment
Cost perspective
The costs used in an analysis will depend on the perspective or viewpoint of the analysis. For example, if
the perspective is that of a health system, only the costs incurred by the health system in the treatment of
the disease or condition will be included, ie mainly direct costs. If the perspective is that of society, costs
will include those incurred by the health system plus the costs incurred by society, ie direct and indirect
costs. Some analyses use a very selective perspective, eg that of a clinic or a hospital. In such cases,
the analysis may fail to recognise costs that are incurred by other sections of the healthcare system, eg
costs that occur in the community as a result of early hospital discharge. Therefore, reports of economic
analyses should clearly specify the perspective and objectives of the analyses.
In wound management, distinguishing costs arising from the treatment of a wound may be difficult
because wound management may form part of the treatment for an overall condition, eg a diabetic foot
ulcer may be treated in a clinic attended by the patient for management of diabetes
Economic analyses of wound management interventions need to clearly define the costs used and how
they are derived to ensure valid interpretation and comparison with other studies.
Opportunity costs
Cost analyses may also examine opportunity costs. These are the costs of a treatment that would not be
possible if a particular sum of money was spent on something else. For example, funding of one sort of
dressing may be at the cost of discontinuing funding for another dressing or intervention.
Cost sources
Comparisons of cost analyses between studies and countries may be complicated by differences in
cost sources, resource usage, exchange rates and local practices27. For example, costs may be based on
reimbursement values rather than on actual costs, and labour costs may vary considerably between
countries. Therefore, direct application of a cost analysis from one situation or country to another may
not always be appropriate.
Direct costs Indirect costs
■ Diagnostic tests
■ Primary and secondary dressings, tape, cleansers,
bandages, support stockings, medication and other
materials costs
■ Clinician time (eg nursing and medical)
■ Hospital/clinic overheads (eg administration services,
building costs, heating, lighting, cleaning etc)
■ Costs of transporting the patient to the health service
■ Loss of income by patients and/or their
carers due to reduced time at or ability to
work
■ Costs due to reduced ability to undertake
domestic responsibilities, eg cleaning or
caring for others
■ Welfare, social security or disability
payments by government or insurance
company
TABLE 2 | Examples of direct and indirect costs in wound management
•
•
To aid study
comparisons,
economic analyses of
wound management
interventions should
specify amounts
for each resource
analysed, eg number
of hours of clinician
time and number
of dressings used,
in addition to the
monetary costs and
the date and source of
the valuation for each

Outcome measures for wounds
•
The outcome measure used in an economic analysis should be appropriate for the disease or
condition and intervention being studied, and ideally should be meaningful to patients23,28.
A few examples of the many outcome measures that have been used in wound management
studies include:
■ proportion of wounds healed
■ time to complete healing
■ percentage wound area reduction
■ proportion of wounds infected
■ number needed to treat
■ number of ulcer days averted
■ proportion of lower extremity amputations
■ change in wound rating score.
The wide variety of outcome measures used in wound management research hinders
comparisons of interventions and progress. There is an urgent need to develop patient-centred
outcomes that look at function and quality of life and to obtain international agreement on
which outcome measures should be used
During analysis the outcome measure may be stratified according to the severity of the wound
using a wound-appropriate recognised classification system. An economic analysis calculates
the cost to achieve the chosen outcome measure.
Using consistent outcome measures
Outcome measures used to compare different interventions should have the same units. The
outcome measures should also have an appropriate time horizon, ie data on the outcome should
be collected for a suitable length of time. For example, if examining the effect of an intervention
on rates of wound infection, follow up of a few weeks may be appropriate. However, a study
examining effect on amputation rates or death may need a follow up that extends for years. If
time horizons are sufficient for positive outcomes to develop (should they exist), the cost-effec-tiveness
analysis is more likely to produce a favourable result25.
The outcome measures and benefits used in economic analyses of wound management should
be clearly defined and explained
•
Utilities and indicators of quality of life
Cost-utility analyses are of increasing interest in some countries because they enable comparisons to be made between interventions
in different healthcare fields. The comparability of these studies stems from their use of utilities which provide a measure of the
preference for a specific health state. However, the potential political problems of overtly using such studies to make choices on
healthcare spending have led to restrictions on the development or use of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) thresholds by the
Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) in the USA29,30 and concerns in Europe31.
A QALY provides an indication of the impact of an intervention on quantity and quality of life. The benefit of an intervention is
expressed as a utility with a score usually between 0 (death) and 1 (perfect health)26. The number of life years gained by the
treatment is multiplied by the utility to give the number of QALYs produced by that intervention. For example, if a treatment has a
utility score of 0.5 and produces 10 additional years of life, it would produce 0.5 x10 = 5 QALYs. Once the benefit of an intervention
has been expressed in QALYs it is then possible to calculate the cost of generating a QALY and to use that to compare interventions.
The EQ-5D (www.euroqol.org/) is a quality of life tool that is often required by assessment agencies. However, there is some doubt
over whether it is sufficiently sensitive for conditions such as chronic wounds. There are tools available to map quality of life or clinical
measures to EQ-5D32. There is increasing interest in developing wound specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) that
include measures of quality of life33.

Interpreting cost studies
Studies examining the costs of wound management vary in complexity, eg from calculation of dressing
costs and nursing time incurred during wound management to studies that calculate cost-effectiveness
ratios or cost-utilities.
There are no universally accepted specific reporting criteria for studies of cost and benefit25, although
some guidelines have been published34-36. Interpretation of cost studies requires care; Box 2 provides a
list of questions to ask when evaluating an economic analysis of a wound management intervention.
Cost studies are very variable in approach and quality. Great care is required when assessing the value
of studies and their generalisability to other healthcare settings
A common misinterpretation of cost analysis in healthcare is that a cost-effective intervention is always
the cheapest intervention37. If the outcomes of the intervention are absolutely identical then this is
valid (ie in cost-minimisation studies). However, if there are additional benefits then there may be an
additional cost that is worth paying in order to receive those benefits.
BOX 2 | Questions to ask when evaluating an economic analysis (adapted from34)
Study design
■ Is the research question stated clearly?
■ Is the research question economically important?
■ What is the perspective of the study — ie has the study been conducted from the perspective of the payor or society, and exactly which costs
have been included?
■ Is the type of economic evaluation chosen stated and is it appropriate?
■ When, where, how and by whom was the study conducted and how was it funded?
Data collection
■ Sources of the cost and clinical data:
¬ Is the data source stated? Were they collected as part of an audit or were data extrapolated from data collected for previous studies?
¬ Was prevalence or incidence used, how was the measure used defined, and was it appropriate to the time horizon of the clinical pathway
under consideration?
¬ Are any assumptions stated and reasonable?
■ Clinical or quality of life outcomes:
¬ Is the patient group representative of patients as a whole — ie what were the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and how generalisable is the study?
¬ Are the clinical outcomes clearly defined and relevant?
¬ Where data are drawn from different studies to compare interventions, are the criteria for the clinical outcomes and follow up periods the
same?
¬ Was the protocol within which the intervention under investigation was used specified?
¬ Was the study a suitable length for the outcome(s) being investigated?
¬ Have any quality of life data used a validated and suitable quality of life instrument for data collection, and have all relevant aspects of quality of
life been included?
¬ Where utilities are used, have they been collected using a recognised instrument, and do the utility scores seem reasonable?
■ Cost data:
¬ Is resource usage specified separately to the cost of the resources used?
¬ How were costs calculated — eg are they based on a reimbursement or fee tariff, or on national/regional health system reference costs?
¬ What is the currency and calculation date of the costs used?
■ Has discounting been used for costs and benefits?
■ Has a sensitivity analysis been conducted — ie has any analysis been performed to check the effect of varying the assumptions made and to see
how robust are the results? Have the variables been stated and justified, and the range over which the variables have been varied stated?
Analysis and interpretation of results
■ Do the results stated answer the study question?
■ Are the results in line with similar studies? If they are contradictory, are potential reasons discussed?
■ Do the conclusions follow on from the results reported?
■ Is there an analysis of study strengths/weaknesses?
■ If the study is restricted to a specific healthcare setting, eg a hospital, has generalisability to other settings, eg the community, been explored?
•

Cost-effectiveness studies
Figure 2 illustrates the potential results of comparing the cost-effectiveness ratios of an existing
and a new intervention. A new intervention that falls into the bottom right section should be
implemented because it brings additional benefits at lower cost when compared to an existing
treatment. An intervention in the top left section should be disregarded because this intervention is
more costly and less effective than the comparator treatment.
The situation is less clear for the two remaining sections — top right and bottom left — because
in the first case the new treatment is more effective but more costly, and in the second, the new
treatment is less expensive but also less effective. Which intervention is deemed to be more cost-effective
will depend on where the cost-effectiveness boundary has been set.
Cost-utility studies
Cost-utility studies use the common denominator of the QALY (page 6) and as a result allow
comparisons between different areas of healthcare. Some agencies, eg NICE in the UK, weight
QALY gains at the end of life more highly than QALY gains at other stages of life.
New treatment
more costly
New treatment
more effective
New treatment
less costly
New treatment
less effective
New treatment more
effective but more
costly
New treatment
dominates – more
effective and less
expensive
New treatment less
expensive but less
effective
Existing treatment
dominates – new
treatment more costly
and less effective
New treatment more costly
FIGURE 2 |
Comparing cost-effectiveness
ratios (adapted
from24,25,38)
Cost–effectiveness boundary — below the line the new treatment is more
cost–effective than the comparator; above the line the new treatment is
less cost–effective than the comparator
?
?

What do we know about cost-effectiveness
in wound management?
There is no
consistency in
what we measure
and what data we
collect
In common with many other fields of healthcare, there is limited information on cost and
cost-effectiveness for wound management, and what is available varies considerably between
countries39. Part of the limitation arises from the wide variety of outcomes used, but also because
many studies have relatively short time horizons (eg 12 weeks or less), even though the cost impact
of chronic and hard-to-heal wounds can occur over many months or years.
The generalisability of the studies that have been performed is variable as many are highly
specific to the setting and healthcare system in which they were performed and also to the study
population involved. As a result, use of existing studies to justify the use of a particular wound
intervention locally requires great attention to detail to ensure that the study data are applicable to
the local situation and local population.
In general, and in common with other areas of health care, cost analyses of wound
management result in underestimates because measurement and valuation of all costs in
monetary terms is not usually possible
Major contributors to the cost of treating a wound include management of wound complications
(eg delayed healing, pain, infection, and amputation, with associated medication and diagnostic
and therapeutic procedures), hospital admission and delayed hospital discharge13,40,41. Dressings
represent a relatively small proportion of total cost even though with appropriate use within a
wound management protocol they have the potential to improve outcomes42,43.
Cost-effective wound management will include treatment of the underlying cause of the wound
in addition to the use of appropriate interventions directed at the wound itself, eg dressings
Appendix 1 (pages 15–16) summarises some of the studies of cost and cost-effectiveness in chronic
wound management. These vary in type from reviews summarising studies of cost of illness to
analyses of cost-utility.
There is a need to develop models to improve the accuracy and applicability of economic
evaluations of wound management. Models are able to embrace longer time periods than most
clinical studies are able, and can allow for comparisons between sub-groups within the study
population. Such models may use discrete-event simulation and Markov modelling44. The
limitations of such models need to be recognised, however, and the models should include a series
of sensitivity analyses to provide an indication of the extent that treatment represents value for
money24,45.
•
•

BOX 3 | Ideal properties of a system for collecting routine data for cost-effectiveness analysis
of wound management
■ Part of an electronic health record scheme used at the point of management that is patient centric and
collected real time
■ Straightforward to use, has intuitive interfaces, minimal training requirements and is backed up auto-matically
to prevent data loss
■ Checks the integrity of data
■ Holds data securely and transmits it periodically to a central repository
■ Is able to provide appropriate point of care reminders based on accepted diagnostic and clinical manage-ment
pathways
■ Uses an agreed structured language and terminology, eg SNOMED (http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/),
to facilitate data exchange
■ Records resource usage, ie patient contact time and dressings used, rather than costs alone
■ Completion is incentivised, eg through legal requirements or links to reimbursement
■ Data extracted for analysis is anonymised and open source (ie available to anyone)
It is not the case
that there is an
abundance of high
quality studies of
cost-effectiveness
in wound
management
•
Data collection for economic analysis
Many economic analyses of the effect of interventions in wound management rely on estimates
of incidence and prevalence, data on wound outcomes and on resource usage, and costs derived
from the literature, and on modelling. This use of previously published information is driven by
the paucity of data in wound management. However, using data from other sources and relying
on modelling are fraught with methodological difficulties that may compromise the validity and
generalisability of the results.
Given the significant costs and logistical issues involved in formal clinical trials, using data
collected as part of routine clinical contact provides opportunities for accumulating data that
can be used for economic analyses
Routinely collected data, ie data that are collected in the course of clinical contact and not
specifically for the purpose of a research study, have the advantage of being 'in the real world'. This
is in contrast to data acquired from the often highly controlled environment of a clinical trial where
the patients selected may not be representative of the general population. Such data collection
also has the potential to allow for the longer time horizons that are more suited to investigating
prevention.
Box 3 lists some of the attributes that a routine data collection system would have ideally to aid
analysis of cost-effectiveness. As electronic health records become more widespread, it should
become easier to collect such data. However, it may be necessary for incentive schemes to be
implemented, such as linking data collection to reimbursement and payment. Implementing such a
data collection system is likely to be expensive and difficult.
The use of an electronic data collection system may deliver patient benefits by:
■ providing an opportunity for standardising practice
■ encouraging use of accepted diagnostic and clinical management pathways, and prompting
referral where appropriate
■ enabling tracking of patients between healthcare sectors and specialties.
Box 4 (page 11) lists some practical tips for clinicians to consider when embarking on data collec-tion
for economic analyses of wound management products.

Cost studies rely
too heavily on
assumption-driven
modelling
BOX 4 | Practical considerations — collecting the data
■ Know what you are measuring and why
■ Develop uniform methods for collecting data
■ Involve a statistician and health economist
■ Educate colleagues on why data collection is important
■ Consider quality of life data, ie measure benefits felt by patients
■ Tailor your cost-effectiveness study to the reimbursement system in your locality
■ Consider starting on a small scale and then scale up to involve more centres to allow larger amounts of
data to be collected over a wider area
■ Remember – if a product works, and has a reasonable cost, it is likely to be cost-effective
Data for different types of analysis
Different types of economic analysis require different types of data. Table 3 gives a broad outline
of the types required for each analysis. The table in Appendix 2 (page 17) lists items of resource
utilisation to consider. Clinicians are advised to involve a statistician and health economist in any
analysis.
TABLE 3 | Data needed for the different sorts of economic analysis
See Table 1 (page 4) for definitions of each of these analyses. This table gives a broad outline of the sorts of
data required and is indicative only.
Type of economic
analysis
Data required
Cost or burden of illness Incidence (or prevalence) of disease; target population size;
duration of disease; costs of treatment (direct or direct+indirect or
direct+indirect+opportunity)
Cost-minimisation Data confirming equivalence of outcomes of the interventions
under investigation; costs of treatment (direct or direct+indirect or
Cost-effectiveness Clinical outcomes data; costs of treatment (direct or direct+indirect or
Cost-utility Clinical outcomes data (life years gained); costs of treatment (direct or
direct+indirect or direct+indirect+opportunity); utility scores
Cost-benefit Clinical outcomes expressed in monetary terms; willingness-to-pay
Cost-consequences Clinical outcomes data — healing rate, time to healing, recurrence rate,
adverse effects, utility and quality of life all separately related to cost

Making a case for cost-effective
wound management
It is important that
we use limited
resources effectively
— the right product,
on the right wound,
at the right time, in
the right patient
Although showing that an intervention is cost-effective should have a positive effect on prospects
for approval for reimbursement and funding, in reality, numerous factors affect whether and when a
new intervention is adopted into clinical practice.
Figure 3 is a simplification of the complex process that a new intervention will go through before
being adopted. The first stages involve proving efficacy and gaining regulatory approval for use.
Demonstration of cost-effectiveness may be required for regulatory approval in some healthcare
systems.
Once through these stages, adoption into practice will be determined largely by funding or
reimbursement agreements, and ease of use and 'fit' in the local healthcare system. This stage itself
is subject to numerous influences including clinical need and the benefits to patients, demand,
whether the intervention is practicable in the healthcare setting it is intended for, and level of
training required.
Expectations and budget impact
When considering cost, payors will be interested in cost-effectiveness, and also in the total
expected impact on their budget. For example, an expensive intervention that is used on only
a few patients in extreme situations may be funded because the total cost is acceptable and
affordable. However, relatively inexpensive interventions that are used on large numbers of
patients may be expected to demonstrate particular clinical benefits, and to be cost-neutral
or even to be cost-saving to be considered for reimbursement. This will be especially so if an
established alternative already exists.
FIGURE 3 | The role of
cost-effectiveness analysis
in the adoption of a new
intervention into clinical
practice
What training, education, maintenance
and disposal services are required for
use to be effective and safe?
Is it easy to use and will it fit into the
healthcare system?
How will the intervention to reimbursed
and to what level?
New intervention
Is there sufficient clinical need and
demand?
Mode of action, safety and efficacy
established +/- cost-effectiveness
analyses
Payors / insurers agree to fund
Adoption into clinical practice
Stakeholders may operate at
multiple levels within this process:
– Assessment agencies
– Government
– Healthcare providers–
nurses/doctors/other clinicians
– Hospital management
– Individual politicians
– Industry
– Insurers/payors
– Patient advocacy and community
groups
– Patients and family
– Pharmacists
– Purchaser/procurement
departments
– Regulatory and licensing
authorities
– Scientists
– Social system
Approval for use by licensing or
regulatory authority
Does it provide value for money, ie is it
cost–effective?
Would use of the intervention result in
loss of funding for a different
intervention?
How many patients would be involved, ie
is the intervention affordable and what is
the total anticipated spend?

Which type of analysis?
It is likely that more than one type of analysis will be needed when making the case for a new
intervention, eg cost of illness and cost-effectiveness ratios. The types used need to be tailored to
the target audience. For example, process-orientated analyses, such as of a wound management
protocol, may not be relevant where budgets are highly compartmentalised. The controller of a
budget that pays for dressings may not be interested that a more expensive dressing saves money
overall by reducing the frequency of dressing changes and nurse contact time, because they do
not want to pay for benefits accrued elsewhere. In contrast, stakeholders with responsibility for
or interest in a broader view of the healthcare system will be interested to know the impact of a
change of intervention on the whole patient journey.
When approaching payors and stakeholders ensure that their roles are understood and that
the information presented is tailored to be relevant and understandable
Practical considerations
Once the key stakeholder to lobby has been identified, a useful starting point may be to
demonstrate the scale of the problem in terms of numbers of patients affected and overall costs
of treatment before focusing on key messages on effectiveness and cost. Issues around how the
intervention relates to key performance indicators, patient safety, prevention of adverse events and
complications may also be usefully presented and discussed (Box 5). If reimbursement has already
been agreed, explanation of how this would work and assistance with practicalities such as coding
for reimbursement claims may be welcomed.
The involvement of individual patients and patient advocacy groups, and physical demonstration
of products may also aid understanding by stakeholders (Box 6, page 14).
There is some suspicion of health economic analyses. Some people believe that health economic
studies always show interventions to be too expensive, stimulate healthcare rationing and
may potentially cause loss of jobs. Others are wary because of the way budgets are structured
in some healthcare systems. For example, in some settings if cost savings occur budgets are
reduced accordingly and so there may be resistance to implementation of cost-saving measures
(Box 6, page 14).
Support your
evidence to
non-healthcare
professionals with
practical examples
that show what
good wound care
can achieve
•
BOX 5 | What decision makers and stakeholders may need to know
This box lists examples of the types of information that might be used to make the case for an
intervention. The information should be tailored to the audience and may not need to include all
of the examples mentioned here
■ What is the scale of the problem — globally, nationally, locally?
■ What is the target group of the intervention — ie which patients will benefit and how many?
■ What is the evidence base for the intervention and how does it compare with other interventions?
■ Are there examples from the 'real world' if the intervention is already in use elsewhere?
■ How long is the intervention required?
■ What is the payment/reimbursement mechanism (if already agreed)?
■ Is the intervention affordable?
■ What costs are involved (direct, indirect, opportunity) and how cost-effective is the intervention?
■ What are the benefits to staff and the organisation/healthcare setting or system?
■ How will the new intervention fit into the current system of healthcare delivery?
■ What education and training costs and additional resources would be needed, eg hospitalisation or
special disposal facilities?
■ What are the risks associated with adopting the intervention?

• Cost-effectiveness analyses need to be conducted and presented with care and sensitivity
In the UK, NICE has published guidance on technology appraisal and the types of information
and data they require through an example called 'The reference case' (Appendix 3, page 17)46.
BOX 6 | Practical considerations — presenting your case
■ Identify and engage with key stakeholders and understand their different perspectives: clinicians will
focus on good clinical outcomes, and procurement on the best financial outcomes
■ Keep your arguments short and straightforward; avoid technical language
■ Use your clinical expertise to provide stakeholders with a deeper knowledge of wound management
■ Demonstrate what good wound management can achieve —
use simple measures such as clinical
photographs
■ Educate stakeholders to look at the 'big picture' — cost savings in one area may increase resource us-age
elsewhere
■ Your data are powerful — develop your arguments carefully and be aware of any unintentional conse-quences
(eg might a reduction in nursing time needed lead to staff cuts?)
■ Remember — you are the catalyst for improving patient management globally
Issues for further research
■ Internationally agreed reporting criteria for studies of cost and benefit
■ Agreement and definition of which outcomes and outcome measures should be used
■ Development of patient-related outcome measures
■ Agreement and definition of which direct and indirect costs should be included in economic evaluations
■ Guidance on how to distinguish costs arising from the management of a wound in a patient with multiple
morbidities
■ Development of models to improve the accuracy and applicability of economic evaluations of wound
management
■ Is it possible to define an increase in wound healing rates that equate to cost-effectiveness or cost-saving?

APPENDIX 1 | Studies of cost in chronic wound management
This table provides summaries of some examples of different types of cost analysis studies in the most common chronic wound types
and is not intended to be an exhaustive list or to be definitive.
Citation Study type and location Results
Chronic
wounds
Posnett & Franks,
200747
Cost of illness for chronic
wounds; UK
■ Cost of caring for patients with chronic wounds in the UK is £2.3-3.1bn per year (2005/6
prices), about 3% of total estimated expenditure for health:
— VLUs - £168-198m per year
— PUs - £1.8-2.6bn per year
— DFUs - £300m per year
■ Authors state these are conservative estimates
■ Estimated from direct costs and incidence/prevalence rates in the literature
Harding et al, 200048 Cost-effectiveness of different
dressings for leg ulcers and
PUs; UK
■ Based on published European clinical trial data: PUs - 519 wounds; leg ulcers - 843 wounds;
used 1999 UK costs
■ Compared direct cost per healed wound of hydrocolloid dressings (Granuflex® (DuoDerm®
- ConvaTec) and Comfeel® (Coloplast)), traditional saline dressings and a skin replacement
(Apligraf® (Organogenesis))
■ For pressure ulcers - cost per healed wound:
— Granuflex® - £422
— Comfeel® - £643
— saline gauze - £2548
■ For leg ulcers - cost per healed wound:
— Granuflex® - £342
— saline gauze - £541
— Apligraf® - £6741
Meaume & Gemmen,
200249
Cost-effectiveness of different
dressings for VLUs and PUs;
Europe and France
■ Based on published European clinical trial data as for Harding et al, 2000
■ Although absolute values differed between the European and French analyses, the results were
consistent for:
— PUs - cost per ulcer healed = saline gauze > Comfeel® > Duoderm®
—
VLUs - cost per ulcer healed = Apligraf® > saline gauze > DuoDerm®
Fife et al, 201250 Analysis of US Wound registry
data to determine actual
cost of outpatient wound
management; USA
■ 5,240 patients with 7,099 wounds; 119,786 outpatient visits
■ Average 16.8 visits per wound
■ Average cost to heal per wound (all types) = US$3,927
■ DFU average cost per patient US$5,391
■ Cost increased with time in service
■ Patients with management >2 years had costs > US$18,000/patient
■ 31% of patients never healed; non-healing wounds were the most expensive
■ "Cost to heal” increased with number of co-morbid conditions
■ Registries created from linked, de-identified electronic health records may represent a way to
determine the real world effectiveness
■ Despite focus on in-patient costs in the USA, these costs were contained under a diagnosis-related
group system; outpatient costs have not been explored and may be far greater
Venous
leg ulcers
(VLUs)
Öien & Ragnarson
Tennvall, 200651
Cost of illness for leg ulcers
tracked over 11 years; Sweden
■ Based on questionnaires about prevalence and time spent on wound management that were
sent to district and community nurses in one county in Sweden in 1994, 1998, 2004 and 2005
■ Costs were estimated using a mean weekly cost for treating VLUs in Sweden of ¤100 per
patient
■ Estimated weekly cost for leg and foot ulcer management dropped from SEK808 in 1994 to
SEK612 in 2005
■ Prevalence of leg and foot ulcers decreased from 0.22% to 0.15% from 1994 to 2005
■ Treatment time per patient fell from 1.7 hours to 1.3 hours over the same time
Franks & Posnett,
200352
Cost-effectiveness of
compression therapy in the
community; Europe
■ Markov* model based on published literature
■ Cost per patient was ¤1205 for systematic management with high compression and ¤2135 for
usual management based on prices in 2000
Iglesias et al, 200453 Cost-effectiveness and
cost-utility of compression
bandaging in VLUs; UK
■ Compared four layer and short-stretch bandages
■ Data were collected alongside the VenUS I study
■ Time horizon 1 year; outcomes ulcer free days and QALYs
■ Mean time for healing was 10.9 days less for four layer bandages than for short stretch
■ Mean cost of four layer bandages was £227.32 less per patient per year than short stretch
■ Mean average difference in QALYs was -0.02
Gordon et al, 200654 Cost-effectiveness analysis
of community models of
management for VLUs;
Australia
■ Comparison of costs of traditional home nursing with a community Leg Club model
■ Data were collected on resources used and costs incurred by the service provider, clients, carers
and community
■ ICER (Leg Club: community management) from the perspective of the service provider, clients,
carers and community was AU$515 (¤318) per healed ulcer and AU$322 (¤199) per reduced
pain score
■ For the service provider, the leg club resulted in cost savings and better health effects than did
home nursing

Diabetic
foot ulcers
(DFUs)
Ragnarson Tennvall &
Apelqvist, 200455
Review of cost of illness studies
for treatment of infected
DFUs and lower extremity
amputation
■ Review of health economic studies from different countries concluded that total direct costs in
1998 US dollars for:
— healing of infected ulcers were approximately US$17,500
— lower extremity amputation were approximately US$30,000-33,500
Van Acker et al,
200056
Cost of illness for DFUs;
Belgium
■ Costs of caring for 151 diabetic patients over one year were analysed according to severity of foot
problems
■ Using 1993 costs:
— preventive management of patients who did not have a DFU as the start of the study cost US$880
per year
— treatment cost US$5227 per ulcer
— management of severe wounds including hospitalisation and amputation cost US$31176 per ulcer
Rezende et al, 200957 Cost of hospitalisation for
patients with DFUs; Brazil
■ The costs of treating a cohort of patients hospitalised with infected DFUs until death or dis-charge
were gathered
■ 39% were discharged with primary healing; 48% received amputation; 13% died in hospital;
4.6% received reconstructive vascular procedures
■ Direct cost per patient varied between US$324.3 and US$5628
Apelqvist et al,
200858
Resource utilisation and direct
costs for negative wound
pressure therapy in diabetic
foot ulcers; USA
■ Based on a multicentre UK randomised controlled trial of 162 diabetic patients randomised to NPWT
or to standard moist wound therapy
■ There was no difference between groups for hospital stay length
■ More surgical procedures and dressing changes were performed on the moist wound therapy group
■ Average direct cost per patient treated for 8 weeks or longer was US$27720 for NPWT and
US$36096 for moist wound therapy, irrespective of clinical outcome
■ Average cost to achieve healing was US$36096 for NPWT group and US$38806 for the moist
wound therapy group
Ragnarson Tennvall &
Apelqvist, 200159
Cost-utility analysis of
prevention of diabetic foot
ulcers and amputation; Sweden
■ Used a Markov* model to estimate cost-utility over 5 years based on data from 1677 diabetic
patients and quality of life data from the literature
■ Outcomes included cumulative incidence of foot ulcers, amputations and deaths, costs, cost-effectiveness
and quality-adjusted life years
■ The model found that if the risk of foot ulcers and lower extremity amputation could be reduced
by 25%, an intensified prevention strategy including patient education, foot care and footwear
is cost-effective (<Euros100,000/QALY) or cost-saving (lower costs and higher QALYs) for all
patients except those with no specific risk factors
Pressure
ulcers (PUs)
Iglesias et al, 200660 Cost-effectiveness analysis of
alternating pressure mattresses
in the prevention of PUs; UK
■ Based on a multicentre UK randomised controlled control involving 1971 patients; patients
received either an alternating pressure mattress or an alternating pressure overlay
■ When compared with the overlays, alternating pressure mattresses were associated with overall
lower costs (£283.6 per patient; 95% CI -£377.59-£976.79) due to reduced length of hospital
stay and a delay in time to ulceration
■ The mattresses were associated with an 80% probability of being cost saving
Makai et al, 201061 Cost-effectiveness evaluation
of a PU prevention strategy in
long-term care settings; The
Netherlands
■ Introduction of a quality improvement collaborative in Dutch long-term care facilities resulted
in:
— incidence of PUs dropping from 15% to 4.5%; prevalence decreasing from 38.6% to 22.7%
— average quality of life increased by 0.02 QALYs
— healthcare costs increased by ¤2000 per patient
— an ICER of 78,500-131,000 (the Dutch cost-effectiveness limit at the time of the study was
¤80,000/QALY)
■ A sensitivity analysis showed no clear indication that the collaborative would be cost-effective
after two years
Fleurence, 200562 Cost-utility model; UK ■ A decision-analytic model was used to evaluate the prevention and treatment of PUs
■ Expert opinion was used to rate quality of life
■ Using £30,000/QALY as the cut-off:
— mattress overlays were cost-effective for prevention
— mattress replacement was cost-effective for treatment of superficial and deep PUs
■ A sensitivity analysis, however, indicated a high degree of uncertainty
Moore et al, 20138 Economic analysis of
repositioning for the prevention
of pressure ulcers; Ireland
■ Comparison of costs of pressure ulcer prevention between two different repositioning regimes
■ The incidence of patients with a new pressure ulcer was significantly lower in the experimental
group: 3% compared with 11% in the control group (p = 0·035; 95% CI 0·031–0·038; ICC = 0·001)
■ Cost per patient free of ulcer was ¤213·9 (experimental group), compared with ¤287·3 (control)
giving an incremental cost of -¤73·4 per patient free of ulcer
■ The difference in cost per patient between the groups was statistically significant (p ≤ 0·0001; ICC
= 0·000). Because the more frequent repositioning regime appears to offer better outcomes and
lower nurse time costs, this is a dominant intervention
■ The more frequent repositioning regime reduced the incidence of pressure ulceration by 8 per 100
patients (11%–3%)
■ Total nurse cost of the two repositioning regimes per 100 patients would be ¤20,660 (experimental)
and ¤25,310 (control), giving an incremental cost per pressure ulcer avoided of –¤547.
*Markov model - a computer modelling system based on probabilities of outcomes.

APPENDIX 3 | Summary of the reference case46
Element of health technology assessment Reference case
Defining the decision problem The scope developed by NICE
Comparator(s) As listed in the scope developed by NICE
Perspective on outcomes All direct health effects, whether for patients or, when relevant, carers
Perspective on costs National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services (PSS)
Type of economic evaluation Cost–utility analysis with fully incremental analysis
Time horizon Long enough to reflect all important differences in costs or outcomes
between the technologies being compared
Synthesis of evidence on health effects Based on systematic review
Measuring and valuing health effects Health effects should be expressed in QALYs. The EQ-5D is the preferred
measure of health-related quality of life in adults
Source of data for measurement of health-related quality of life Reported directly by patients and/or carers
Source of preference data for valuation of changes in health-related
quality of life
Representative sample of the UK population
Equity considerations An additional QALY has the same weight regardless of the other
characteristics of the individuals receiving the health benefit
Evidence on resource use and costs Costs should relate to NHS and PSS resources and should be valued using
the prices relevant to the NHS and PSS
Discounting The same annual rate for both costs and health effects (currently 3.5%)
APPENDIX 2 | Items of resource utilisation to consider for health economic studies of wound management42
Initial patient and wound
assessment
■ Clinician time
■ Facility cost (eg outpatient clinic visit)
■ Diagnostic tests (eg X-ray)
■ Laboratory tests (eg microbiology)
■ Dressings, drugs and other disposables
■ Patient and carer travel time*
■ Patient out of pocket payments*
■ Patient/carer lost work time*
Wound treatments ■ Clinician time for dressing changes
■ Facility cost (clinic or outpatient setting)
■ Clinician travel time (to patient's home)
■ Antibiotics
■ Diagnostic and laboratory tests
■ Special equipment (eg orthotic insoles)
■ Patient and carer travel time*
Inpatient costs ■ Inpatient bed-days
■ Antibiotics
■ Diagnostic and laboratory tests
■ Surgical procedures (theatre time, clinician time, disposables)
■ Rehabilitation costs
■ Outpatient follow-up visits
■ Special equipment (eg orthotic insoles)
*Depending on the perspective of the analysis (patient/carer costs; social costs)

APPENDIX 4 | Additional expert working group
David Armstrong Professor of Surgery and Director, Southern Arizona Limb Salvage Alliance (SALSA), University of Arizona College of Medicine,
Phoenix, Arizona (USA)
Caroline Fife Executive Director, US Wound Registry, The Woodlands, Texas (USA)
Kyoichi Matsuzaki Director, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kawasaki Municipal Tama Hospital and Associate Professor,
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki (Japan)
Catherine Milne Advanced Practice Nurse - Wound, Ostomy, Continence Connecticut Clinical Nursing Associates, LLC Bristol, Connecticut (USA)
Hermelinda Pedrosa [position, institution, town, state] (Brazil)
Hiromi Sanada Professor, Department of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo,
Tokyo (Japan)
Ronald J Shannon Vice President, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Tissue Therapies Limited, Clifton Park, New York (USA)
Vijay K Shukla Professor of Surgery, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (India)
Hiske Smart Course Coordinator, International Interdisciplinary Wound Management Course, Stellenbosch University; Current President, Wound
Healing Association of Southern Africa, Stellenbosch (South Africa)
Peter Vowden, Consultant Vascular Surgeon and Professor of Wound Healing; Clinical Director, NIHR Bradford Wound Prevention and Treatment
Healthcare Technology Cooperative, Bradford (UK)
Thomas E Serena MD CEO and Medical Director, SerenaGroup. Cambridge, MA (USA)

REFERENCES
1. Borowitz M, Sheldon T. Controlling health care: from economic interventions to
micro-clinical regulation. Health Economics 1993; 2: 201-204.
2. Warner M, Evans W. Pearls of wisdom. Health Service Journal 1993; 16: 20-21.
3. Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S, et al. Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing
threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen 2010; 17(6): 763-71.
4. Hjort A, Gottrup F. Cost of wound treatment to increase significantly in Denmark
over the next decade. J Wound Care 2010; 19(5): 173-84.
5. World Union of World Healing Societies (WUWHS). Principles of best practice:
Diagnostics and wounds. A consensus document. London: MEP Ltd, 2008.
6. Association for the Advancement of Wound Care (AAWC). Association for the
Advancement of Wound Care guideline of pressure ulcer guidelines. Malvern (PA):
Association for the Advancement of Wound Care (AAWC); 2010. 14 p. Available
at: http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=24361#Section427
7. Edwards H, Finlayson K, Courtney M, et al. Health service pathways for patients
with chronic leg ulcers: identifying effective pathways for facilitation of evidence
based wound care. BMC Health Services Research 2013; 13: 86.
8. Moore Z, Cowman S, Posnett J. An economic analysis of repositioning for the
prevention of pressure ulcers. J Clin Nurs 2013; 22: 2354-60.
9. Vritis MC. The economic impact of complex wound care on home health
agencies. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2013; 40(4): 360-63.
10. Fife CE, Carter MJ, Walker D. Why is it so hard to do the right thing in wound care?
Wound Repair Regen 2010; 18(2): 154-8.
11. Norris R, Staines K, Vogwill V. Reducing the cost of lower limb wound
management through industry partnership and staff education. J Wound Care
2012; 21(5); 216-222.
12. Unwin N. The diabetic foot in the developing world. Diabetes Metabol Res Rev
2008; 24 (Suppl 1): S31-33.
13. Drew, P, Posnett J, Rusling L, et al. The cost of wound care in a local population in
England. Int Wound J 2007; 4(2): 149-55.
14. O’Brien JF, Clarke-Moloney M, Grace PA et al.. Leg ulcers: a cross-sectional survey
of management practices and treatment costs in Ireland. Phlebology 2002; 17:
98–102.
15. Gottrup F, Holstein P, Jørgensen B, et al. New concept of a multidisciplinary wound
healing center and a national expert function of wound healing. Arch Surg 2001;
136(7): 765-72.
16. Skrepnek GH, Mills JL, Armstrong DG. The inpatient burden of diabetic foot
disease: 2001-2010. Presented at: American Diabetes Association 73rd Scientific
Sessions, Chicago (IL), 2013.
17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Measuring effectiveness
and cost effectiveness: the QALY. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/
features/measuring effectivenessandcosteffectivenesstheqaly.jsp. Last update: 10
April 2010.
18. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
19. Phillips C. What is cost-effectiveness? Hayward Medical Communications, 2009.
Available at: http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/
Cost-effect.pdf
20. Macario A. The economic assessment of advanced wound care products: from
research theory to practice. Eur Tissue Repair Soc 2001; 8)1): 9-11.
21. Phillips TJ. Cost effectiveness in wound care. Ostomy Wound Manage 1996; 42(1):
56-62.
22. Kernick DP. Introduction to health economics for the medical practitioner. Postgrad
Med J 2003; 79: 147-50.
23. Soon SL, Chen SC. What are wound care outcomes? Wounds 2004; 16(5): 150-
63.
24. Phillips CJ. Health economics: an introduction for health professionals. Wiley-Blackwell,
2005.
25. Carter MJ. Cost-effectiveness research in wound care: definitions, approaches and
limitations. Ostomy Wound Manage 2010; 56(11): 48-59.
26. Jackson D. Health economics made easy. Banbury, UK: Scion Publishing Ltd, 2012.
27. Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Willis M, Odegaard K. Cost effectiveness of
becaplermin in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in four European countries.
Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(7): 767-78.
28. Serena T, Bates-Jensen B, Carter M, et al. Consensus principles for wound care
research obtained using a Delphi process. Wound Repair Regen 2012; 20: 284-93.
29. PCORI Authorizing Legislation - Mar 23 2010. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/
assets/PCORI-Authorizing-Legislation-032310.pdf (accessed 4 July 2013).
30. Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness
information. N Engl J Med 2010; 363; 1495-97.
31. Holmes D. Report triggers quibbles over QALYs, a staple of health metrics. Nature
Medicine 2013; 19(3): 248.
32. Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-
5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 151.
33. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Cano S, et al. Development and validation of a new
patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL
instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 95.
34. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of
economic submissions to the BMJ. Br Med J 1996; 313; 275-83.
35. Siegel JE, Wienstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting
cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
JAMA 1996; 276(16): 1339-41.
36. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness
analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value in
Health 2005; 8(5): 521-33.
37. Franks PJ, Bosanquet N. Cost-effectiveness: seeking value for money in lower
extremity wound management. Lower Extrem Wounds 2004; 3(2): 87-95.
38. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis
Making 1990; 10(3): 212-14.
39. Posnett J, Gottrup F, Lundgren H, Saal G. The resource impact of wounds on
health-care providers in Europe. J Wound Care 2009; 18(4): 154-61.
40. Hamilton C. Speculating to accumulate: reducing the cost of wound care by
appropriate dressing selection. J Wound Care 2008; 17(8): 359-63.
41. Dealey C, Posnett J, Walker A. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. J
Wound Care 2012: 31(6); 261-66.
42. Gottrup F, Apelqvist J, Price P, et al. Outcomes in controlled and comparative
studies on non-healing wounds: recommendations to improve the quality of
evidence in wound management. J Wound Care 2010; 19(6): 239-68.
43. Stephen-Haynes J, Bielby A, Searle R. Putting patients first: reducing human and
economic costs of wounds. Wounds UK 2011; 7(3): 47-55.
44. Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health
care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health
Economics 2003; 12(10); 837-48.
45. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Caxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
46. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to methods of
technology appraisal - the reference case. NICE, 2013. Available at: http://publications.
nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9/the-reference-
case
47. Posnett J, Franks P. The costs of skin breakdown and ulceration in the UK. In: Skin
breakdown - the silent epidemic. Hull: Smith & Nephew Foundation, 2007; 6-12.
48. Harding K, Cutting K, Price P. The cost-effectiveness of wound management
protocols of care. Br J Nurs 2000; 9(19) (suppl): S6-24.
49. Meaume S, Gemmen E. Cost-effectiveness of wound management in France:
pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers. J Wound Care 2002; 11(6): 219-224.
50. Fife CE, Carter MJ, Walker D, Thomson B. Wound care outcomes and associated
cost among patients treated in US outpatient wound centers. Wounds 2012; 24(1):
10-17.

51. Öien RF, Ragnarson Tennvall G. Accurate diagnosis and effective treatment of
leg ulcers reduce prevalence, care time and costs. J Wound Care 2006; 15(6):
259-62.
52. Franks PJ, Posnett J. Cost-effectiveness of compression therapy. In:
Understanding compression therapy. London: MEP Ltd, 2003.
53. Iglesias CP, Nelson EA, Cullum N, et al. Economic analysis of VenUS I, a
randomized trial of two bandages for treating venous leg ulcers. Br J Surg
2004; 91(10): 1300-6.
54. Gordon L, Edwards H, Courtney M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of two
community models of care for patients with venous leg ulcers. J Wound Care
2006; 15(8): 348-53.
55. Ragnarson Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Health-economic consequences of diabetic
foot lesions. Clin Inf Dis 2004; 39(suppl 2): S132-39.
56. Van Acker K, Oleen-Burkey M, De Decker L, et al. Cost and resource utilization
for prevention and treatment of foot lesions in a diabetic foot clinic in Belgium.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 50: 87–95.
57. Rezende KF, Ferraz MB, Malerbi DA, et al. Direct costs and outcomes for
inpatients with diabetes mellitus and foot ulcers in a developing country:
The experience of the public health system of Brazil. Diabetes & Metabolic
Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews 2009; 3: 228-32.
58. Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AL. Resource utilization and
economic costs of care based on a randomized trial of vacuum-assisted
closure therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. Am J Surg 2008;
195(6): 782-88.
59. Ragnarson Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Prevention of diabetes-related foot ulcers
and amputations: a cost-utility analysis based on Markov model simulations.
Diabetologia 2001; 44: 2077-87.
60. Iglesias C, Nixon J, Cranny G, et al. Pressure relieving supports surfaces
(PRESSURE) trial: cost effectiveness analysis. Br Med J doi: 10.1136/
bmj.38850.711435.7C (published 1 June 2006).
61. Makai P, Koopmanschap M, Bal R, Nieboer AP. Cost-effectiveness of a
pressure ulcer quality collaborative. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
2010; 8: 11 http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/8/1/11
62. Fleurence RL. Cost-effectiveness of pressure-relieving devices for the
prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care
2005; 21(3): 334-41.

A Wounds International publication
www.woundsinternational.com

Making the case for cost-effective wound management

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Making the case for cost-effective wound management (20)

More from GNEAUPP. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Making the case for cost-effective wound management