Intravenous literature: Davie, M., Jeffreson, P., Jones, T., Roberts, T., Adekunle, F. and Mitchell, P. (2010) Peripatetic intravenous service for metabolic bone disease: case study in patient centred-care for new NHS. Current Medical Research & Opinion. 26(8), p.2033-9.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a ‘close to patient’ peripatetic intravenous service (PIVS) for delivery of specialist osteoporosis care in a community setting without increasing cost and with a reduced carbon footprint.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost and feasibility of a PIVS for intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonate treatment were modelled using UK National Health Service costings and then tested in the field for 1 year. Average patient mileage to peripatetic sites was compared with mileage travelled if treated at the base hospital (current practice). The method of travel to hospital (current practice) or peripatetic sites (new study) was ascertained together with patients’ preference for the new or the current system. Peripatetic sites were researched and those with suitable facilities selected. Data for fuel consumption were based on a usage of 1 litre per 14.5 km.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was cost comparison between hospital and peripatetic services. Others included patient satisfaction, miles saved, method of travel to the clinic and changes in CO(2) emissions.
RESULTS: Cost per patient, including drugs, lies between pound557 and pound622 annually for 1000 and 500 patients, respectively which is cost-neutral compared with hospital attendance. PIVS was rated more convenient by 98% of patients. Hospital transport was significantly reduced and the total monthly saving of 2000 miles has reduced CO(2) emission by 6072 kg p.a. No medical emergency occurred in 410 infusions.
CONCLUSIONS: PIVS is cost neutral compared with a conventional service, leads to a better patient experience, a significant cutback in hospital transport costs and a reduction of the NHS carbon footprint. However not all drugs may be suitable for this service: the area served was rural with large distances and poor public transport and mileage savings may not accrue in urban areas. Insurance was not included in the calculation of costs.