Dataset Information

Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Integrated Care (MIC) model compared to Usual Care (UC) in Dutch residential homes.

Methods

The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a 6 month, clustered, randomized controlled trial involving 10 Dutch residential homes. Outcome measures included a quality of care weighted sum score, functional health (COOP WONCA) and Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALY). Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to analyze differences in costs and cost-effectiveness.

Results

The quality of care sum score in MIC was significantly higher than in UC. The other primary outcomes showed no significant differences between the MIC and UC. The costs of providing MIC were approximately €225 per patient. Total costs were €2,061 in the MIC group and €1,656 for the UC group (mean difference €405, 95% -13; 826). The probability that the MIC was cost-effective in comparison with UC was 0.95 or more for ceiling ratios larger than €129 regarding patient related quality of care. Cost-effectiveness planes showed that the MIC model was not cost-effective compared to UC for the other outcomes.

Interpretation

Clinical effect differences between the groups were small but quality of care was significantly improved in the MIC group. Short term costs for MIC were higher. Future studies should focus on longer term economic and clinical effects.

Trial registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN11076857.

SUBMITTER: MacNeil Vroomen JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3360056 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care.

MacNeil Vroomen Janet L JL Boorsma Marijke M Bosmans Judith E JE Frijters Dinnus H M DH Nijpels Giel G van Hout Hein P J HP

PloS one 20120524 5

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Integrated Care (MIC) model compared to Usual Care (UC) in Dutch residential homes.<h4>Methods</h4>The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a 6 month, clustered, randomized controlled trial involving 10 Dutch residential homes. Outcome measures included a quality of care weighted sum score, functional health (COOP WONCA) and Quality Adjusted Life-Years (Q ...[more]

PMID: 22655047

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlder people living in care homes in England have complex health needs due to a range of medical conditions, mental health needs and frailty. Despite an increasing policy expectation that professionals should operate in an integrated way across organisational boundaries, there is a lack of understanding between care homes and the National Health Service (NHS) about how the two sectors should work together, meaning that residents can experience a poor "fit" between their needs, and services they can access. This paper describes a survey to establish the current extent of integrated working that exists between care homes and primary and community health and social services.MethodsA self-completion, online questionnaire was designed by the research team. Items on the different dimensions of integration (funding, administrative, organisational, service delivery, clinical care) were included. The survey was sent to a random sample of residential care homes with more than 25 beds (n = 621) in England in 2009. Responses were analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods.ResultsThe survey achieved an overall response rate of 15.8%. Most care homes (78.7%) worked with more than one general practice. Respondents indicated that a mean of 14.1 professionals/ services (other than GPs) had visited the care homes in the last six months (SD 5.11, median 14); a mean of .39 (SD.163) professionals/services per bed. The most frequent services visiting were district nursing, chiropody and community psychiatric nurses. Many (60%) managers considered that they worked with the NHS in an integrated way, including sharing documents, engaging in integrated care planning and joint learning and training. However, some care home managers cited working practices dictated by NHS methods of service delivery and priorities for care, rather than those of the care home or residents, a lack of willingness by NHS professionals to share information, and low levels of respect for the experience and knowledge of care home staff.ConclusionsCare homes are a hub for a wide range of NHS activity, but this is ad hoc with no recognised way to support working together. Integration between care homes and local health services is only really evident at the level of individual working relationships and reflects patterns of collaborative working rather than integration. More integrated working between care homes and primary health services has the potential to improve quality of care in a cost-effective manner, but strategic decisions to create more formal arrangements are required to bring this about. Commissioners of services for older people need to capitalise on good working relationships and address idiosyncratic patterns of provision to care homes.The low response rate is indicative of the difficulty of undertaking research in care homes.

Project description:BackgroundA joint NHS-Local Authority initiative in England designed to provide a dedicated nursing and physiotherapy in-reach team (IRT) to four residential care homes has been evaluated. The IRT supported 131 residents and maintained 15 'virtual' beds for specialist nursing in these care homes.MethodsData captured prospectively (July 2005 to June 2007) included: numbers of referrals; reason for referral; outcome (e.g. admission to IRT bed, short-term IRT support); length of stay in IRT; prevented hospital admissions; early hospital discharges; avoided nursing home transfers; and detection of unrecognised illnesses. An economic analysis was undertaken.Results733 referrals were made during the 2 years (range 0.5 to 13.0 per resident per annum) resulting in a total of 6,528 visits. Two thirds of referrals aimed at maintaining the resident's independence in the care home. According to expert panel assessment, 197 hospital admissions were averted over the period; 20 early discharges facilitated; and 28 resident transfers to a nursing home prevented. Detection of previously unrecognised illnesses accounted for a high number of visits. Investment in IRT equalled 44.38 pounds per resident per week. Savings through reduced hospital admissions, early discharges, delayed transfers to nursing homes, and identification of previously unrecognised illnesses are conservatively estimated to produce a final reduction in care cost of 6.33 pounds per resident per week. A sensitivity analysis indicates this figure might range from a weekly overall saving of 36.90 pounds per resident to a 'worst case' estimate of 2.70 pounds extra expenditure per resident per week.Evaluation early in implementation may underestimate some cost-saving activities and greater savings may emerge over a longer time period. Similarly, IRT costs may reduce over time due to the potential for refinement of team without major loss in effectiveness.ConclusionIntroduction of a specialist nursing in-reach team for residential homes is at least cost neutral and, in all probability, cost saving. Further benefits include development of new skills in the care home workforce and enhanced quality of care. Residents are enabled to stay in familiar surroundings rather than unnecessarily spending time in hospital or being transferred to a higher dependency nursing home setting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Community residential aftercare (step-down) services can ease the transition after a mental health hospital stay for patients with severe mental illness (SMI). AIMS:To investigate use of community and specialised mental health care services and costs in patients with SMI the first 12 months after discharge from a mental health hospital (MHH), comparing community residential aftercare (CRA) and treatment as usual. METHODS:An open parallel group randomised controlled trial with 41 participants. Data on use of specialist services (hospital, ambulant treatment and outpatient treatment) and community services (residential stays, home help, home care nursing, mental health consultation) were collected from specialist and community registers and health records. RESULTS:For the primary outcome, utilisation of community mental health services, the intervention group used, on average, 29% fewer hours (mean differences -?21.6 h, 95% CI -93.1 to 44.9, p?=?.096) with a cost saving of 29% (mean differences -?1845 EUR, 95% CI -8267 to 4171, p?=?.102), but the estimates were imprecise. For the secondary outcome, the study groups had the same total number of inpatient days (66 days), but the intervention group had on average of 13.4 fewer inpatient days in the mental health hospital (95% CI -29.9 to 0.9. p?=?.008). The number of inpatient admissions (mean difference?-?0.9 admissions, 95% CI -3.5 to 1.5, p?=?.224) and readmissions (-?0.8, 95% CI -2.5 to 0.9. p?=?.440) was lower in the intervention group. The intervention group had on average a total cost saving of 38.5% (mean differences -?23,071 EUR, 95% CI -45,450 to 3027. p?=?.057). A post hoc multivariable regression analysis controlling for baseline characteristics gave a reduction in total cost in favour of the intervention group of -?19,781 EUR (95% CI -44,072 to 4509, p=,107). CONCLUSION:In this study, it was not possible to draw a definite conclusion about the effect, due to the small sample and imprecision of the estimates. The direction of the results and size of the point estimate, in addition to findings in other studies, indicates that transferring patients ready for discharge from mental hospital to community residential aftercare can have the potential to reduce total consumption of health services and costs without increased hospital admissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered in clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01719354 ).

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) in the elderly remains a challenge in intermediate disease burden areas like Hong Kong. Given a higher TB burden in the elderly and limited impact of current case-finding strategy by patient-initiated pathway, proactive screening approaches for the high-risk group could be optimal and increasingly need targeted economic evaluations. In this study, we examined whether and under what circumstance the screening strategies are cost-effective compared with no screening strategy for the elderly at admission to residential care homes.MethodsA decision analytic process based on Markov model was adopted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four strategies: (i) no screening, (ii) TB screening (CXR) and (iii) TB screening (Xpert) represent screening for TB in symptomatic elderly by chest X-ray and Xpert® MTB/RIF respectively, and (iv) LTBI/TB screening represents screening for latent and active TB infection by QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube and chest X-ray. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old people, using a health service provider perspective and a time horizon of 20 years. The outcomes were direct medical costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn the base-case analysis, no screening was the most cost-saving; TB screening (CXR) was dominated by TB screening (Xpert); LTBI/TB screening resulted in more life-years and QALYs accrued. The ICERs of LTBI/TB screening were US$19,712 and US$29,951 per QALY gained compared with no screening and TB screening (Xpert), respectively. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained, LTBI/TB screening was the most cost-effective when the probability of annual LTBI reactivation was greater than 0.155% and acceptability of LTBI/TB screening was greater than 38%. In 1,000 iterations of Monte Carlo simulation, the probabilities of no screening, TB screening (CXR), TB screening (Xpert), and LTBI/TB screening to be cost-effective were 0, 1.3%, 20.1%, and 78.6% respectively.ConclusionsScreening for latent and active TB infection in Hong Kong elderly people at admission to residential care homes appears to be highly effective and cost-effective. The key findings may be the next key factor to bring down TB endemic in the elderly population among intermediate TB burden areas.

Dataset Information

Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care.

Objective

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Trial registration

Publications

Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets