Evaluation of the impact of non-inpatient i.v. antibiotic treatment for acute infections on the hospital, primary care services and the patient.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of providing i.v. antibiotic therapy outside hospital. The main outcome measures were the direct costs of providing i.v. antibiotic therapy in the community compared with standard hospital treatment and the perceptions of patients and General Practitioners (GPs). A total of 29 patients entered the study, of whom 15 received teicoplanin and 14 ceftriaxone. The costs of drugs exceeded the cost of the estimated alternative treatments (median Pound Sterling 208 and Pound Sterling 126 respectively) and this was only partially compensated for by a small reduction in costs of consumables. The staff time required to train patients was compensated for by savings in drug preparation and administration. Sensitivity analysis showed that these conclusions were sensitive to drug and patient selection, and that treatment of skin and soft tissue infections outside hospital with ceftriaxone was likely to have similar variable costs to treatment in hospital with drugs such as flucloxacillin. Non-inpatient i.v. (NIPIV) therapy was estimated to save a total of 532 bed days in the year of the study. Patients strongly preferred non-inpatient treatment to hospital treatment. GPs identified a number of potential disadvantages, mainly concerning safety and lack of support for patients at home. Following the study a strategy for development of NIPIV services in Tayside has been developed with local GPs and a plan has been agreed for funding a community liaison nurse based on the impact of NIPIV therapy on future bed requirements in Dundee Teaching Hospitals Trust.