Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Standardized Clinical Nutrition Diagnosis and Treatment Pathway in Patients with Pulmonary Infection.

Abstract

Objective From the perspective of economics, this study discusses the value of establishing a standardized clinical nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection and provides a reference for optimizing the diagnosis and treatment pathway of pulmonary infection. Methods The patients who received the nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway intervention in 2017 were counted as the routine group and were subdivided into the conventional intervention group (C1) and conventional control group (C2) according to whether the standardized nutrition therapy was applied or not. The patients who received the nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway intervention in 2020 were counted as the experimental group and were subdivided into the experimental intervention group (T1) and the experimental control group (T2) according to whether standardized intervention was applied or not. The total hospitalization expenses, average daily hospitalization cost, nutrition support expenses, plasma albumin before and after nutrition support, readmission, and other indicators of all patients were recorded and compared. The cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and cost-effectiveness threshold for cost-effectiveness analysis were adopted. Results Compared with the C2 group, the C1 group had higher total hospitalization expenses, average daily hospitalization expenses, nutritional support expenses, and plasma albumin improvement rate and lower readmission rate (P < 0.001). Compared with the T2 group, the T1 group had higher total hospitalization cost, average daily hospitalization expenses, nutritional support expenses, and plasma albumin improvement rate and lower readmission rate (P < 0.001). Taking the improvement rate of plasma albumin as the effect index, compared with the C1 group, the T1 group has less investment cost and better effect, and the ICER is negative (below the cost-effect threshold). And taking the readmission rate as the effective index, compared with the C1 group, the T1 group invested less cost and had a better effect, and the ICER was negative (below the cost-effect threshold). Conclusion For the patients with pulmonary infection, whether the improvement rate of plasma albumin or the readmission rate is used as the impact index, the standardized nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway in 2020 is more economical than the nonstandardized nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway.