To compare the cost-utility of standard dressing with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in adults with closed surgical wounds associated with major trauma to the lower limbs. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective based on data collected from the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) multicentre randomized clinical trial. Health resource utilization was collected over a six-month post-randomization period using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates while uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.Aims
Methods
Traditionally, informed consent for clinical
research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information
Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time
as they need to discuss the study information with their friends
and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This
system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what
happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency? This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed
consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken
may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment
required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent
following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips
for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries
and emergencies. Cite this article:
