Dataset Information

Is comprehensive geriatric assessment hospital at home a cost-effective alternative to hospital admission for older people?

ABSTRACT:

Background

hospital level healthcare in the home guided by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) might provide a less costly alternative to hospitalisation for older people.

Objective

to determine the cost-effectiveness of CGA admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) compared with hospital admission.

Design/intervention

a cost-effectiveness study alongside a randomised trial of CGA in an admission avoidance HAH setting, compared with admission to hospital.

Participants/setting

older people considered for a hospital admission in nine locations across the UK were randomised using a 2:1 randomisation schedule to admission avoidance HAH with CGA (N = 700), or admission to hospital with CGA when available (N = 355).

Measurements

quality adjusted life years, resource use and costs at baseline and 6 months; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. The main analysis used complete cases.

Results

adjusting for baseline covariates, HAH was less costly than admission to hospital from a health and social care perspective (mean -£2,265, 95% CI: -4,279 to -252), and remained less costly with the addition of informal care costs (mean difference -£2,840, 95% CI: -5,495 to -185). There was no difference in quality adjusted survival. Using multiple imputation for missing data, the mean difference in health and social care costs widened to -£2,458 (95% CI: -4,977 to 61) and societal costs remained significantly lower (-£3,083, 95% CI: -5,880 to -287). There was little change to quality adjusted survival.

Conclusions

CGA HAH is a cost-effective alternative to admission to hospital for selected older people.

SUBMITTER: Singh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8753046 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDelivering hospital-level care with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the home is one approach to deal with the increased demand for bed-based hospital care, but clinical effectiveness is uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons.DesignMultisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865).Setting9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom.Patients1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission.InterventionAdmission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of living at home was measured at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were new admission to long-term residential care, death, health status, delirium, and patient satisfaction.ResultsParticipants had a mean age of 83.3 years (SD, 7.0). At 6-month follow-up, 528 of 672 (78.6%) participants in the CGA HAH group versus 247 of 328 (75.3%) participants in the hospital group were living at home (relative risk [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15]; P = 0.36); 114 of 673 (16.9%) versus 58 of 328 (17.7%) had died (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P = 0.92); and 37 of 646 (5.7%) versus 27 of 311 (8.7%) were in long-term residential care (RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; P < 0.001).LimitationThe findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected.ConclusionAdmission avoidance HAH with CGA led to similar outcomes as hospital admission in the proportion of older persons living at home as well as a decrease in admissions to long-term residential care at 6 months. This type of service can provide an alternative to hospitalization for selected older persons.Primary funding sourceThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Project description:In many integrated care programs, a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is conducted to identify older people's problems and care needs. Different ways for conducting a CGA are in place. However, it is still unclear which CGA instruments and procedures for conducting them are used in integrated care programs, and what distinguishes them from each other. Furthermore, it is yet unknown how and to what extent CGAs, as a component of integrated care programs, actually reflect the main principles of integrated care, being comprehensiveness, multidisciplinarity and person-centredness. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (a) describe and compare different CGA instruments and procedures conducted within integrated care programs for older people living at home, and (b) describe how the principles of integrated care were applied in these CGAs. A scoping review of the scientific literature on CGAs in the context of integrated care was conducted for the period 2006-2018. Data were extracted on main characteristics of the identified CGA instruments and procedures, and on how principles of integrated care were applied in these CGAs. Twenty-seven integrated care programs were included in this study, of which most were implemented in the Netherlands and the United States. Twenty-one different CGAs were identified, of which the EASYcare instrument, RAI-HC/RAI-CHA and GRACE tool were used in multiple programs. The majority of CGAs seemed to reflect comprehensiveness, multidisciplinarity and person-centredness, although the way and extent to which principles of integrated care were incorporated differed between the CGAs. This study highlights the high variability of CGA instruments and procedures used in integrated care programs. This overview of available CGAs and their characteristics may promote (inter-)national exchange of CGAs, which could enable researchers and professionals in choosing from the wide range of existing CGAs, thereby preventing them from unnecessarily reinventing the wheel.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency.Search strategyWe searched the EPOC Register, Cochrane's Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AARP Ageline, and handsearched high yield journals.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) compared with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up.Data collection and analysisThree independent reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data. Two additional reviewers moderated.ResultsTwenty two trials evaluating 10,315 participants in six countries were identified. For the primary outcome "living at home," patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessment were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up (odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P = 0.003; number needed to treat 33) at a median follow-up of 12 months versus 1.25 (1.11 to 1.42; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 17) at a median follow-up of six months) compared with patients who received general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be living in residential care (0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.001). Subgroup interaction suggested differences between the subgroups "wards" and "teams" in favour of wards. Patients were also less likely to die or experience deterioration (0.76, 0.64 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and were more likely to experience improved cognition (standardised mean difference 0.08, 0.01 to 0.15; P = 0.02) in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group.ConclusionsComprehensive geriatric assessment increases patients' likelihood of being alive and in their own homes after an emergency admission to hospital. This seems to be especially true for trials of wards designated for comprehensive geriatric assessment and is associated with a potential cost reduction compared with general medical care.

Project description:ObjectivesComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) may be a way to deliver optimal care for care home residents. We used realist review to develop a theory-driven account of how CGA works in care homes.DesignRealist review.SettingCare homes.MethodsThe review had three stages: first, interviews with expert stakeholders and scoping of the literature to develop programme theories for CGA; second, iterative searches with structured retrieval and extraction of the literature; third, synthesis to refine the programme theory of how CGA works in care homes.We used the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychInfo, PubMed, Google Scholar, Greylit, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute.Results130 articles informed a programme theory which suggested CGA had three main components: structured comprehensive assessment, developing a care plan and working towards patient-centred goals. Each of these required engagement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Most evidence was available around assessment, with tension between structured assessment led by a single professional and less structured assessment involving multiple members of an MDT. Care planning needed to accommodate visiting clinicians and there was evidence that a core MDT often used care planning as a mechanism to seek external specialist support. Goal-setting processes were not always sufficiently patient-centred and did not always accommodate the views of care home staff. Studies reported improved outcomes from CGA affecting resident satisfaction, prescribing, healthcare resource use and objective measures of quality of care.ConclusionThe programme theory described here provides a framework for understanding how CGA could be effective in care homes. It will be of use to teams developing, implementing or auditing CGA in care homes. All three components are required to make CGA work-this may explain why attempts to implement CGA by interventions focused solely on assessment or care planning have failed in some long-term care settings.Trial registration numberCRD42017062601.