Video monitoring dominates current fall prevention, and a costlier option runs $18,255 per fall with injury avoided, in an NU513 Unit 8 economic evaluation memo. Searches like "nu 513 unit 8 assignment example", "nu513 unit 8 sample" and "nu513 unit 8 example" land here.
Economic Evaluation Memo: Adopt Video Monitoring, and Treat Added Toileting Rounds as a Question of Willingness to Pay
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU513: Health Care Finance, Economics, and Strategic Planning
Unit 8 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
All costs, injury counts and rates are composite and bracketed; the method and published estimates cited are real.
Memo Header
To: Patient Safety Committee From: [Student Name], RN, Nurse Manager, Adult Medicine Date: [Date] Re: Economic comparison of fall prevention options for high-risk patients on the medicine unit
Bottom Line
Adopt video monitoring. Under the base assumptions it costs $62,812 less than current practice each year and prevents about 2.5 more falls with injury, so it is better on both counts. The more intensive option, video monitoring plus scheduled toileting rounds, prevents about 2.5 further injuries at an added cost of $45,639, about $18,256 per injury avoided. That is more than the hospital's own estimated cost of an injury, so the option does not pay for itself on the hospital's figures; whether to fund it is a question of how much the organization is willing to pay to prevent an injury.
Methods
Perspective: the hospital's. Time horizon: one year. Outcome: falls with injury among patients meeting the unit's criteria for continuous observation. Costs include staff time, equipment, licensing and the hospital's estimated added cost per fall with injury, a bracketed [$13,900], used for interpretation rather than netted into totals. The approach follows standard incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, in which options are ranked by cost and each is compared with the next less costly option that is not dominated (Drummond et al., 2015).
Results
1. Current practice, one-to-one sitters: total annual cost $406,895; expected falls with injury 12.0.
2. Video monitoring, one monitor technician watching up to [twelve] rooms, with sitters kept for patients who cannot be redirected by voice: total cost $344,083; expected falls with injury 9.5.
3. Video monitoring plus scheduled toileting rounds every two hours for monitored patients: total cost $389,722; expected falls with injury 7.0.
Why No Ratio for Video Monitoring
Video monitoring costs less than current practice and prevents more injuries. An option that is both cheaper and more effective dominates, and no cost-effectiveness ratio is needed or meaningful. Computing a ratio against a dominated option would produce a negative number that looks like a price but describes a saving, and it would invite the committee to compare it with ratios that mean something different.
The Combined Option, Compared With the Right Comparator
The combined option must be compared with video monitoring, the next best option, not with current practice. Comparing it with current practice would borrow video monitoring's advantage and make the added toileting rounds look better value than they are.
Incremental cost: $389,722 minus $344,083 equals $45,639. Incremental effect: 9.5 minus 7.0 equals 2.5 falls with injury avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $45,639 divided by 2.5 equals about $18,256 per fall with injury avoided.
At the hospital's own estimate of $13,900 per injury, the added rounds cost more than the injuries they prevent. The decision therefore turns on willingness to pay: an injury avoided also spares a patient pain, loss of function and sometimes a longer stay or a move to a nursing home, which the hospital's cost figure does not capture.
Sensitivity
1. Cost per injury. The hospital's figure is conservative. In a multisite economic analysis, each fall causing injury added roughly $36,800 to the cost of the stay (Dykes et al., 2023). At that figure, the combined option would more than pay for itself.
2. Video effectiveness. If video monitoring prevented 1.0 rather than 2.5 injuries relative to current practice, it would still cost less, and it would still dominate.
3. Sitter hours retained. If more patients than assumed need a sitter alongside video, video's cost rises; it remains cheaper than current practice unless sitter use falls by less than [40] percent.
4. Evidence. Published evaluations of video monitoring describe feasibility and reductions in falls among high-risk patients but come mostly from single-hospital before-and-after designs (Sand-Jecklin et al., 2016), so the effect estimates are uncertain.
What the Committee Is Being Asked to Decide
Two decisions are bundled here, and they should be taken separately. The first, adopting video monitoring, is not a trade-off on these figures: it saves money and prevents injuries, and the committee needs only to confirm the assumptions. The second, adding toileting rounds, is a genuine trade-off. It asks the committee to state a figure it has never written down, the most it will pay to prevent one fall with injury, and then to compare that figure with about $18,256.
Recommendation
Adopt video monitoring now. Pilot scheduled toileting rounds for monitored patients for six months, track falls with injury, and decide on continuation using the observed effect and the committee's stated willingness to pay per injury avoided.
References
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dykes, P. C., Curtin-Bowen, M., Lipsitz, S., Franz, C., Adelman, J., Adkison, L., Bogaisky, M., Carroll, D., Carter, E., Herlihy, L., Lindros, M. E., Ryan, V., Scanlan, M., Walsh, M., Wien, M., & Bates, D. W. (2023). Cost of inpatient falls and cost-benefit analysis of implementation of an evidence-based fall prevention program. JAMA Health Forum, 4(1), e225125. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5125
Sand-Jecklin, K., Johnson, J. R., & Tylka, S. (2016). Protecting patient safety: Can video monitoring prevent falls in high-risk patient populations? Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 31(2), 131-138. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000163
How this NU513 Unit 8 example is structured
The memo follows incremental logic, and that order is its main teaching. Options are ranked by cost before any ratio is computed. Video monitoring costs $62,812 less than current practice and prevents 2.5 more injuries, so it dominates, and no ratio is needed for it; the memo explains why a ratio against a dominated option would mislead. The combined option is then compared with video monitoring, the next best, not with current practice: $45,639 more for 2.5 more injuries avoided. That ratio exceeds the hospital's cost per injury, so the combined option does not pay for itself, and the memo frames the decision as how much the organization will pay to avoid harm its accounts undervalue. Sensitivity follows. Weaker video effects leave it cheaper than current practice; a smaller cut in sitter hours reverses that, the assumption a pilot must test.
Get an NU513 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Start from your Unit 8 program and its comparator, plus any cost and outcome figures supplied by your section, then attach the prompt and rubric. A model evaluation memo with the ratios computed and explained comes back inside 24-48h, and the first request is free. Choosing and defending your own program remains your part. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
NU513 Unit 8 questions, answered
What is an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio?
It is the extra cost of one option compared with another, divided by the extra benefit it produces, such as injuries avoided or quality-adjusted life years gained. The comparison should be with the next best option that is not dominated. In the sample, the combined program costs $45,639 more than video monitoring alone and avoids 2.5 more injuries, giving $18,255 per injury avoided.
Do I need quality-adjusted life years?
Not usually in a nursing finance course. A natural outcome unit, such as falls with injury, infections or readmissions avoided, is easier to measure and easier for a committee to understand. Some sections ask for QALYs or cite studies that use them; if yours does, explain the measure briefly. The sample uses falls with injury because the unit already counts them.
Where do the cost figures come from?
Program costs come from vendor quotes and staffing rates; harm costs typically come from the hospital's finance office or published studies. The sample brackets its figures as composite. If you cite a published cost per fall or infection, give its source and year and adjust for inflation where your section expects it. Unsourced figures weaken every ratio built on them.