Dataset Information

The impact of frailty Screening of Older adults with muLtidisciplinary assessment of those At Risk during emergency hospital attendance on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care (SOLAR): a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Older people account for 25% of all Emergency Department (ED) admissions. This is expected to rise with an ageing demographic. Older people often present to the ED with complex medical needs in the setting of multiple comorbidities. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has been shown to improve outcomes in an inpatient setting but clear evidence of benefit in the ED setting has not been established. It is not feasible to offer this resource-intensive assessment to all older adults in a timely fashion. Screening tools for frailty have been used to identify those at most risk for adverse outcomes following ED visit. The overall aim of this study is to examine the impact of CGA on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care in an undifferentiated population of frail older people with medical complaints who present to the ED and Acute Medical Assessment Unit.

Methods

This will be a parallel 1:1 allocation randomised control trial. All patients who are ≥ 75 years will be screened for frailty using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) tool. Those with a score of ≥ 2 on the ISAR will be randomised. The treatment arm will undergo geriatric medicine team-led CGA in the ED or Acute Medical Assessment Unit whereas the non-treatment arm will undergo usual patient care. A dedicated multidisciplinary team of a specialist geriatric medicine doctor, senior physiotherapist, specialist nurse, pharmacist, senior occupational therapist and senior medical social worker will carry out the assessment, as well as interventions that arise from that assessment. Primary outcomes will be the length of stay in the ED or Acute Medical Assessment Unit. Secondary outcomes will include ED re-attendance, re-hospitalisation, functional decline, quality of life and mortality at 30 days and 180 days. These will be determined by telephone consultation and electronic records by a research nurse blinded to group allocation.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Service Executive (HSE) Mid-Western Regional Hospital Research Ethics Committee (088/2020). Our lay dissemination strategy will be developed in collaboration with our Patient and Public Involvement stakeholder panel of older people at the Ageing Research Centre and we will present our findings in peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04629690 . Registered on November 16, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Leahy A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406381 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFines have been proposed as means for reducing non-attendance in healthcare. The empirical evidence of the effect of fines is however limited. The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at outpatient clinics.Design, participants and setting1:1 randomised controlled trial of appointments for an outpatient clinic, posted to Danish addresses, between 1 May 2015 and 30 November 2015. Only first appointment for users was included. Healthcare professionals and investigators were masked.InterventionA fine of DKK250 (€34) was issued for non-attendance. Users were informed about the fine in case of non-attendance by the appointment letter, and were able to reschedule or cancel until the appointment. A central administration office administered the fine system.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were non-attendance of non-cancelled appointments, fine policy administration costs, net of productivity consequences and probability of fining non-attendance being cost-effective over no fining for a range of hypothetical values of reduced non-attendance.ResultsAll of the 6746 appointments included were analysed. Of the 3333 appointments randomised to the fine policy, 130 (5%) of non-cancelled appointments were unattended, and of the 3413 appointments randomised to no-fine policy, 131 (5%) were unattended. The cost per appointment of non-attendance was estimated at DKK 56 (SE 5) in the fine group and DKK47 (SE 4) in the no-fine group, leading to a non-statistically significant difference of DKK10 (95% CI -9 to 22) per appointment attributable to the fine policy. The probability of cost-effectiveness remained around 50%, irrespective of increased values of reduced non-attendance or various alternative assumptions used for sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsAt a baseline level of around 5%, fining non-attendance does not seem to further reduce non-attendance. Future studies should focus on other means for reduction of non-attendance such as nudging or negative reinforcement.Trial registration numberISRCTN61925912.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The objective is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an intervention that reduces hospital re-admission among older people at high risk. A cost-effectiveness model to estimate the costs and health benefits of the intervention was implemented. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The model used data from a randomised controlled trial conducted in an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital. Participants were acute medical admissions aged >65 years with at least one risk factor for re-admission: multiple comorbidities, impaired functionality, aged >75 years, recent multiple admissions, poor social support, history of depression. The intervention was a comprehensive nursing and physiotherapy assessment and an individually tailored program of exercise strategies and nurse home visits with telephone follow-up; commencing in hospital and continuing following discharge for 24 weeks. The change to cost outcomes, including the costs of implementing the intervention and all subsequent use of health care services, and, the change to health benefits, represented by quality adjusted life years, were estimated for the intervention as compared to existing practice. The mean change to total costs and quality adjusted life years for an average individual over 24 weeks participating in the intervention were: cost savings of $333 (95% Bayesian credible interval $ -1,932:1,282) and 0.118 extra quality adjusted life years (95% Bayesian credible interval 0.1:0.136). The mean net-monetary-benefit per individual for the intervention group compared to the usual care condition was $7,907 (95% Bayesian credible interval $5,959:$9,995) for the 24 week period. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The estimation model that describes this intervention predicts cost savings and improved health outcomes. A decision to remain with existing practices causes unnecessary costs and reduced health. Decision makers should consider adopting this program for elderly hospitalised patients.

Project description:IntroductionThe virtual multidisciplinary stroke care clinic (VMSCC) is the first nurse-led clinic developed to offer support to community-dwelling stroke survivors and caregivers, and to promote poststroke recovery. This two-arm randomised controlled trial will evaluate its effectiveness on survivors' self-efficacy (SE), survivors' and caregivers' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness on emergency admissions and length of readmission hospital stay.Methods and analysisA consecutive sample of 384 stroke survivor-caregiver dyads will be recruited from four hospitals. An online platform that embraces readily accessible and reliable information will be developed. Participants randomly assigned to the intervention group will receive usual care plus the VMSCC service. The service includes access to a tablet containing 30 videos demonstrating appropriate self-care strategies, communication with a registered nurse monthly through video and telephone calls and regular blood pressure monitoring. Primary outcomes include survivors' SE in self-management and survivors' and caregivers' HRQoL. Secondary outcomes include survivors' performance of self-management behaviours, depression and social participation; and caregivers' coping strategies, satisfaction with caring and depression. Data will be collected at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months after commencing the intervention. Survivors' and caregivers' satisfaction with the service will be assessed at 6-month follow-up. Multivariable regressions and generalised estimating equations model will be conducted. Survivors' emergency admissions and length of hospital stay will be evaluated during the 6-month follow-up period. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed on the average total cost incurred.DiscussionThe results will inform stakeholders about incorporating the VMSCC service into current stroke rehabilitation service.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC Ref. No.: 2017.660). All participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated through scientific publications, and presentations at local and international conferences.Trial registration numberChiCTR1800016101; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED).DesignRandomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.SettingA single ED in England.Participants372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups.InterventionsPatients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).Main outcome measuresEconomic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings.ResultsFrom a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care.ConclusionsThese results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

Project description:BackgroundFrailty is a major health issue which impacts the life of older people, posing a significant challenge to the health system. One of the key emerging areas is the development of frailty interventions to halt or reverse the progression of the condition. In many countries, economic evidence is required to inform public funding decisions for such interventions, and cost-effectiveness models are needed to estimate long-term costs and effects. Such models should capture current clinical understanding of frailty, its progression and its health consequences. The objective of this paper is to present a conceptual model of frailty that can be used to inform the development of a cost-effectiveness model to evaluate frailty interventions.MethodsAfter critical analysis of the clinical and economic literature, a Delphi study consisting of experts from the disciplines of clinical medicine and epidemiology was undertaken to inform the key components of the conceptual model. We also identified relevant databases that can be used to populate and validate the model.ResultsA list of significant health states/events for which frailty is a strong independent risk factor was identified (e.g., hip fracture, hospital admission, delirium, death). We also identified a list of important patient attributes that may influence disease progression (e.g., age, gender, previous hospital admissions, depression). A number of large-scale relevant databases were also identified to populate and validate the cost-effectiveness model. Face validity of model structure was confirmed by experts.Discussion and conclusionsThe proposed conceptual model is being used as a basis for developing a new cost-effectiveness model to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes associated with a range of frailty interventions. Using an appropriate model structure, which more accurately reflects the natural history of frailty, will improve model transparency and accuracy. This will ultimately lead to better informed public funding decisions around interventions to manage frailty.

Project description:BackgroundThe copper intrauterine device is the most effective form of emergency contraception and can also provide long-term contraception. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device has also been studied in combination with oral levonorgestrel for women seeking emergency contraception. However, intrauterine devices have higher up-front costs than oral methods, such as ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Health care payers and decision makers (eg, health care insurers, government programs) with financial constraints must determine if the increased effectiveness of intrauterine device emergency contraception methods are worth the additional costs.ObjectiveWe sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 emergency contraception strategies-ulipristal acetate, oral levonorgestrel, copper intrauterine device, and oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device-over 1 year from a US payer perspective.Study designCosts (2017 US dollars) and pregnancies were estimated over 1 year using a Markov model of 1000 women seeking emergency contraception. Every 28-day cycle, the model estimated the predicted number of pregnancy outcomes (ie, live birth, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion) resulting from emergency contraception failure and subsequent contraception use. Model inputs were derived from published literature and national sources. An emergency contraception strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, the cost to prevent 1 additional pregnancy) was less than the weighted average cost of pregnancy outcomes in the United States ($5167). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probability of being the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy were calculated from 1000 probabilistic model iterations. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty in the cost of emergency contraception, subsequent contraception, and pregnancy outcomes as well as the model probabilities.ResultsIn 1000 women seeking emergency contraception, the model estimated direct medical costs of $1,228,000 and 137 unintended pregnancies with ulipristal acetate, compared to $1,279,000 and 150 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel, $1,376,000 and 61 unintended pregnancies with copper intrauterine devices, and $1,558,000 and 63 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device was the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy in the majority (63.9%) of model iterations and, compared to ulipristal acetate, cost $1957 per additional pregnancy prevented. Model estimates were most sensitive to changes in the cost of the copper intrauterine device (with higher copper intrauterine device costs, oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device became the most cost-effective option) and the cost of a live birth (with lower-cost births, ulipristal acetate became the most cost-effective option). When the proportion of obese women in the population increased, the copper intrauterine device became even more most cost-effective.ConclusionOver 1 year, the copper intrauterine device is currently the most cost-effective emergency contraception option. Policy makers and health care insurance companies should consider the potential for long-term savings when women seeking emergency contraception can promptly obtain whatever contraceptive best meets their personal preferences and needs; this will require removing barriers and promoting access to intrauterine devices at emergency contraception visits.