Post-acute care for older people in community hospitals--a cost-effectiveness analysis within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Health Research and Information Division, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland.
Age and Ageing (Impact Factor: 3.11). 06/2008; 37(5):513-20. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn120
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT to compare the cost effectiveness of post-acute care for older people provided in community hospitals with general hospital care.
cost-effectiveness study embedded within a randomised controlled trial.
seven community hospitals and five general hospitals at five centres in the midlands and north of England. Participants: 490 patients needing rehabilitation following hospital admission with an acute illness. Intervention: multidisciplinary team care for older people in community hospitals.
EuroQol EQ-5D scores transformed into quality-adjusted life years; health and social service costs during the 6-month period following randomisation.
there was a non-significant difference between the community hospital and general hospital groups for changes in quality-adjusted life-year values from baseline to 6 months (mean difference 0.048; 95% confidence interval -0.028 to 0.123; P = 0.214). Resource use was similar for both groups. The mean (standard deviation) costs per patient for health and social services resources used were comparable for both groups: community hospital group 8,946 pounds ( 6,514 pounds); general hospital group 8,226 pounds ( 7,453 pounds). These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimate was 16,324 pounds per quality-adjusted life year. A cost effectiveness acceptability curve suggests that if decision makers' willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year was 10,000 pounds, then community hospital care was effective in 47% of cases, and this increased to only 50% if the threshold willingness to pay was raised to 30,000 pounds.
the cost effectiveness of post-acute rehabilitation for older people was similar in community hospitals and general hospitals.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimAlthough patients admitted to post-acute care (PAC) units are usually clinically stable, unexpected medical conditions requiring acute ward readmissions still occur and can jeopardize the clinical effectiveness of PAC services. The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate predictive factors for clinical instability of patients in PAC units to improve the quality of PAC services.Methods This was a nationwide multicenter cohort study that recruited patients from five PAC units in Taiwan between July 2007 and June 2009. All patients received the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) within 72 h of PAC unit admissions. Conditions requiring acute ward re-admissions from PAC units were defined as clinical instability. Causes of clinical instability for all patients and data of CGA were collected for analysis.ResultsOf 918 enrolled participants, 119 (12.9%) experienced acute ward readmissions, including 106 (89.1%) admissions related to medical conditions and 13 (10.9%) for surgical causes. Common conditions included diseases of the respiratory system (n = 32, 26.9%), genitourinary system (n = 24, 20.2%) and digestive system (n = 14, 11.8%). Surgical conditions, mainly fractures and dislocation of upper limbs, were significantly more likely to occur later (P = 0.05) in the PAC unit admissions than medical conditions. Compared with the non-readmission group, the readmission group was leaner (mean body mass index 21.1 ± 2.8 vs 22.0 ± 3.8 kg/m2, P = 0.007), having poorer functional status (mean Barthel Index 41.0 ± 19.4 vs 45.4 ± 20.3, P = 0.02; mean IADL: 1.3 ± 1.6 vs 1.7 ± 1.8, P = 0.016), poorer cognitive function (mean Mini-Mental State Examination: 16.8 ± 6.4 vs 18.3 ± 6.4, P = 0.022), poorer ambulation (mean Timed Up & Go test 32.7 ± 18.7 vs 26.6 ± 11.7 s, P = 0.039) and poorer nutritional status (mean Mini-Nutrition Assessment 13.3 ± 5.7 vs 15.4 ± 5.8, P < 0.001), but similar in depression status (mean Geriatric Depression Score 3.7 ± 3.3 vs 3.4 ± 2.8, P = 0.247). In multivariate logistical regression model, lower Mini-Mental State Examination score was the only independent predictor for clinical instability (odds ratio 3.8, 95% confidence interval 1.348–10.870, P = 0.012).Conclusion Approximately 13% of PAC patients might experience acute ward readmissions, and nearly 90% of them are caused by medical conditions. Poor cognitive function is a significant predictive factor for clinical instability in PAC, which deserves more clinical attention for all PAC patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2014; 14: 267–272..
    Geriatrics & Gerontology International 04/2014; 14(2). · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether providing elderly alternate level of care (ALC) patients with interdisciplinary care on a transitional care unit (TCU) achieves better clinical outcomes and lowers costs compared with providing them with standard hospital care. Before-and-after structured retrospective chart audit. St Joseph's Hospital in Comox, BC. One hundred thirty-five consecutively admitted patients aged 70 years and older with ALC designation during 5-month periods before (n = 49) and after (n = 86) the opening of an on-site TCU. Length of stay, discharge disposition, complications of the acute and ALC portions of the patients' hospital stays, activities of daily living (mobility, transfers, and urinary continence), psychotropic medications and vitamin D prescriptions, and ALC patient care costs, as well as annual hospital savings, were examined. Among the 86 ALC patients receiving care during the postintervention period, 57 (66%) were admitted to the TCU; 29 of the 86 (34%) patients in the postintervention group received standard care (SC). All 86 ALC patients in the postintervention group were compared with the 49 preintervention ALC patients who received SC. Length of stay reduction occurred among the postintervention group during the acute portion of the hospital stay (14.0 days postintervention group vs 22.5 days preintervention group; P < .01). Discharge home or to an assisted-living facility increased among the postintervention group (30% postintervention group vs 12% preintervention group; P < .01). Patients' ability to transfer improved among the postintervention group (55% postintervention group vs 14% preintervention group; P < .01). At discharge, 48% of ALC patients in the postintervention group were able to transfer independently compared with 17% of ALC patients in the preintervention group. Hospital-acquired infections among the postintervention group decreased during the acute phase (14% postintervention group vs 33% preintervention group; P < .01) and in the ALC phase of hospital stay (16% postintervention group vs 31% preintervention group; P = .011). Antipsychotic prescriptions decreased among the postintervention group (45% postintervention group vs 66% preintervention group; P = .026). Despite greater use of rehabilitation services, TCU costs per patient were lower ($155/d postintervention period vs $273/d preintervention period). Elderly ALC patients experienced improvements in health and function at reduced cost after the creation of an interdisciplinary TCU, to which most of the nonpalliative ALC patients were transferred. Although all the postintervention ALC patients (those admitted to the TCU and those who received SC) were analyzed together, it is very likely that the greatest gains were made in the ALC patients who received care in the TCU.
    Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 05/2014; 60(5):e263-71. · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Provision of high quality transitional care is a challenge for health care providers in many western countries. This systematic review was conducted to (1) identify and synthesise research, using randomised control trial designs, on the quality of transitional care interventions compared with standard hospital discharge for older people with chronic illnesses, and (2) make recommendations for research and practice.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2014; 14(1):346. · 1.66 Impact Factor