A cost and value analysis of two interventions with incontinent nursing home residents

Abstract

Objective: More than half of nursing home residents suffer from urinary incontinence. These residents typically have long stays and, because of comorbid cognitive and physical impairments, have little hope of living again in a noninstitutional environment The value of interventions to change functional status of this chronically institutionalized population is often questioned. This paper explores this value issue in the context of two incontinence management interventions that have been shown to improve functional status: (1) Functional Incidental Training (FIT), and (2) Prompted Voiding (PV). The relative value of the different interventions for the nursing home population was estimated using paired preferences.

Design: The cost of two interventions (FIT and PV) that target incontinent nursing home residents was related to the value of these interventions as perceived by consumers of nursing home services. Both interventions decrease incontinence frequency, and one intervention also improves mobility endurance.

Participants: Ninety incontinent nursing home residents received the intervention; 37 older nondemented board and care residents and 31 family members of the nursing home residents provided estimates of the intervention's value.

Measurement: The staff-time allocations involved in implementing both interventions were documented in more than 85 resident care episodes. These time data were converted to labor cost based on the cost of nursing aides who would actually implement the intervention. The value of each intervention was assessed by asking consumers to make choices between the intervention and its associated outcomes (such as increased dryness) and other nursing home services of known cost (e.g., moving to a private room).

Results: Both interventions had labor costs that were greater than "usual care" costs. The additional cost was estimated to be $4.31 per resident per day for PV and $6.42 per resident per day for FIT if these programs were implemented from 7 AM to 7 AM. Consumer preference data indicated that consumers preferred the FIT and PV outcomes to more expensive alternative services, calculated to cost $10.00 per day, often marketed to consumers,

Conclusion: Consumers may prefer the FIT and PV interventions relative to the typical services often marketed to the nursing home consumer. The analysis completed in this paper suggests that both interventions have value for frail residents likely to live out their lives in a nursing home.