Late-stage, primary open-angle glaucoma in Europe:Social and health care maintenance costs and quality of life of patients from 4 countries

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate costs and quality of life (QoL) of late-stage glaucoma patients in 4 European countries. Methods: Retrospective review of medical charts of patients with POAG who were followed in a low-vision or vision rehabilitation center in one of 4 countries for at least 1 year was used to determine patient characteristics, health status, and health care resource use. Visual impairment was measured by best-corrected visual acuity (Snellen score). Patients were also interviewed over the telephone in order to assess their health-related QoL (using EuroQol EQ-5D) and use of resources including: the number of visits to rehabilitation centers, visits to hospital and non-hospital specialists, the use of low-vision devices, medication, tests, and the use of hired home help. The costs associated with resource use were calculated from the perspective of a third-party payer of health and social care based on resource usage and unit costs in each country. Results: Patients undergoing visual rehabilitation in France (n=21), Denmark (n=59), Germany (n=60), and the United Kingdom (n=22) were identified, interviewed and had their medical charts reviewed. Annual maintenance costs of late-stage glaucoma amounted to €830 (±445) on average. Average home help costs were more than 3 times higher. QoL, on average, was 0.65 (±0.28). QoL was positively correlated with the level of visual acuity in the patients' best eye. On the other hand, visual acuity was also positively correlated to health care costs, but negatively correlated to costs of home help. Conclusions: The study was limited by its observational, uncontrolled design. The finding that late-stage glaucoma is associated with higher home help costs than health care maintenance costs suggests that potential savings from a better preventive treatment are to be found for social care payers rather than health care payers. © 2008 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved.

The implausibility of ‘usual care’ in an open system: sedation and weaning practices in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the United Kingdom (UK).

Background
The power of the randomised controlled trial depends upon its capacity to operate in a closed system whereby the intervention is the only causal force acting upon the experimental group and absent in the control group, permitting a valid assessment of intervention efficacy. Conversely, clinical arenas are open systems where factors relating to context, resources, interpretation and actions of individuals will affect implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Consequently, the comparator (usual care) can be difficult to define and variable in multi-centre trials. Hence outcomes cannot be understood without considering usual care and factors that may affect implementation and impact on the intervention.

Methods
Using a fieldwork approach, we describe PICU context, ‘usual’ practice in sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, and factors affecting implementation prior to designing a trial involving a sedation and ventilation weaning intervention. We collected data from 23 UK PICUs between June and November 2014 using observation, individual and multi-disciplinary group interviews with staff.

Results
Pain and sedation practices were broadly similar in terms of drug usage and assessment tools. Sedation protocols linking assessment to appropriate titration of sedatives and sedation holds were rarely used (9 % and 4 % of PICUs respectively). Ventilator weaning was primarily a medical-led process with 39 % of PICUs engaging senior nurses in the process: weaning protocols were rarely used (9 % of PICUs). Weaning methods were variably based on clinician preference. No formal criteria or use of spontaneous breathing trials were used to test weaning readiness. Seventeen PICUs (74 %) had prior engagement in multi-centre trials, but limited research nurse availability. Barriers to previous trial implementation were intervention complexity, lack of belief in the evidence and inadequate training. Facilitating factors were senior staff buy-in and dedicated research nurse provision.

Conclusions
We examined and identified contextual and organisational factors that may impact on the implementation of our intervention. We found usual practice relating to sedation, analgesia and ventilator weaning broadly similar, yet distinctively different from our proposed intervention, providing assurance in our ability to evaluate intervention effects. The data will enable us to develop an implementation plan; considering these factors we can more fully understand their impact on study outcomes.