PubMed · 12120930
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Jane Hern. 2002-06-29. RCVS fees for 2003.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12120930/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The renewed interest in home dialysis therapies makes it pertinent to address the essentials of establishing and running a successful home dialysis program. The success of a home program depends on a clear understanding of the structure of the home program team, the physical plant, educational tool requirements, reimbursement sources and a business plan. A good command of the technical and economic aspects is important, but the primary drivers for the creation and growth of a home dialysis program are the confidence and commitment of the nephrological team.
INTRODUCTION: The studies in which the direct costs generated by enteral nutrition have been analyzed in hospitals of our country are limited. The objective of our study has been the analysis of costs incurred by this treatment in our center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 449 consecutive patients who received nutritional support and that were hospitalized in the Hospital Río Ortega (Valladolid) since January 1999 to June 2001 has been studied. In this study only the direct costs were analyzed. RESULTS: The nutritional support was effective in the complete group with an improvement in the serum levels of albumin, prealbumin, and transferrin. In the analysis of direct costs generated by enteral nutrition the total median cost was of 598.4 +/- 761 euros/total treatment/patient, which represents a daily median cost of 36.3 +/- 8.8 euros/day/patient. In the analysis of costs by paragraphs, the expendable equipment constituted 36% of the total, representing the tubes 3%, the lines of nutrition 12%, the containers 21% and the nutritional preparations 64%. A cost analysis was also carried out in relation to the different groups of pathologies, and in this way the patients with hematological tumors and the patients with higher aereodigestive tract tumors showed some greater costs, due to their higher median hospital stay. The patients who received nutrition through a gastrostomy probe showed also higher costs, in addition due to a greater hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of the nutritional support were superior in the group of patients with hematological tumors and with higher aereodigestive tract, due to their greatest hospital stay. A greater cost in the patients whose access route was the gastrostomy was also observed.