Published online before print September 28, 2006, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000245083.97460.e1
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2006;37:2790.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Economic Evaluation of Australian Stroke Services
A Prospective, Multicenter Study Comparing Dedicated Stroke Units With Other Care Modalities
From the Program Evaluation Unit (M.M., D.C., C.M., R.C.), School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne; the National Stroke Research Institute (D.C., D.P., G.D.), Austin Health, Heidelberg Heights; the National Stroke Foundation (D.C., S.D., G.D.), Melbourne; the Neurology Department (S.D.), Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville; the Neurology Department (G.D.), Austin Health, Heidelberg Heights; and the Department of Medicine (D.C., S.D., G.D.), The University of Melbourne.
Correspondence to Marjory L Moodie, Program Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, 4/207 Bouverie Street, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. E-mail mmoodie{at}unimelb.edu.au
Background and Purpose— Level I evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that the model of hospital care influences stroke outcomes; however, the economic evaluation of such is limited. An economic appraisal of 3 acute stroke care models was facilitated through the Stroke Care Outcomes: Providing Effective Services (SCOPES) study in Melbourne, Australia. The aim was to describe resource use up to 28 weeks poststroke for each model and examine the cost-effectiveness of stroke care units (SCUs).
Methods— A prospective, multicenter, cohort study design was used. Costs and outcomes of stroke patients receiving 100% treatment in 1 of 3 inpatient care models (SCUs, mobile service, conventional care) were compared. Health-sector resource use up to 28 weeks was measured in 1999. Outcomes were thorough adherence to a suite of important clinical processes and the number of severe inpatient complications.
Results— The sample comprised 395 participants (mean age 73 [SD 14], 77% first-ever strokes, males 53%). When compared with conventional care (n=84), costs for mobile service (n=209) were significantly higher (P=0.024), but borderline for SCU (n=102, P=0.08; $AUD12 251; $AUD15 903; $AUD15 383 respectively). This was primarily explained by the greater use of specialist medical services. The incremental cost-effectiveness of SCUs over conventional care was $AUD9867 per patient achieving thorough adherence to clinical processes and $AUD16 372 per patient with severe complications avoided, based on costs to 28 weeks.
Conclusions— Although acute SCU costs are generally higher, they are more cost-effective than either mobile service or conventional care.
Key Words: cost-effectiveness • stroke management • stroke units
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  Cumberland Consensus Working Group, B. Cheeran, L. Cohen, B. Dobkin, G. Ford, R. Greenwood, D. Howard, M. Husain, M. Macleod, R. Nudo, et al. The Future of Restorative Neurosciences in Stroke: Driving the Translational Research Pipeline From Basic Science to Rehabilitation of People After Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2009; 23(2): 97 - 107. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Luengo-Fernandez, A. M. Gray, and P. M. Rothwell Costs of Stroke Using Patient-Level Data: A Critical Review of the Literature Stroke, February 1, 2009; 40(2): e18 - e23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Lyons and A. G. Rudd Health Policy and Outcomes 2006 Stroke, February 1, 2007; 38(2): 229 - 231. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|