How great a burden does early discharge to hospital-at-home impose on carers? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the effects of an early discharge hospital-at-home scheme on self-reported carer strain and quality of life. DESIGN: a randomized controlled trial SETTING: Bristol, UK. SUBJECTS: 133 carers of patients receiving either early discharge from hospital to hospital-at-home (n = 93) care or usual hospital care and discharge (n = 40). OUTCOME MEASURES: modified 12-item Carer Strain Index, COOP-WONCA charts and EuroQol EQ-5D at 4 weeks and 3 months post-randomization. RESULTS: the mean age of carers was 65 years; 56% were women. There were no marked differences between the groups in any of the outcomes used at either 4-week or 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: there was no evidence of increased self-reported burden imposed on carers of patients discharged early from hospital. Decisions on the implementation of hospital-at-home schemes should be influenced by considerations of cost and effectiveness rather than effects on carers. The effects on carers may, however, differ for other forms of home-based care.

Inter-rater reliability of the Barthel ADL index: how does a researcher compare to a nurse?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a nonclinical research assistant, using standardized scoring criteria, can reliably administer the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index in a sample of elderly inpatients. DESIGN: Paired comparison of nurse and nonclinical research assistant Barthel Index assessments. SETTING: Acute hospital wards from two hospitals in a UK Healthcare Trust, with a catchment population of approximately 224,000 people. METHODS: A consecutive sample of 94 elderly patients with a variety of medical problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barthel ADL Index, Folstein Mini-Mental Status Examination. RESULTS: Whilst the inter-rater reliability of the Barthel Index was within acceptable boundaries, two items out of ten had only fair agreement and low crude agreement (transfer and dressing) on Cohen's kappa scores. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the differences observed in any particular context, the Barthel Index can be applied with reasonable reliability by nonclinical staff applying the standardized scoring criteria. It should be noted, however, that the kappa coefficients between clinical and nonclinical assessors tend to be lower than those found when comparing two clinically trained assessors in previous research.

Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness and acceptability of an early discharge, hospital at home scheme with acute hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness and acceptability of early discharge to a hospital at home scheme with that of routine discharge from acute hospital. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Acute hospital wards and community in north of Bristol, with a catchment population of about 224 000 people. SUBJECTS: 241 hospitalised but medically stable elderly patients who fulfilled criteria for early discharge to hospital at home scheme and who consented to participate. INTERVENTIONS: Patients' received hospital at home care or routine hospital care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' quality of life, satisfaction, and physical functioning assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after randomisation to treatment; length of stay in hospital and in hospital at home scheme after randomisation; mortality at 3 months. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient mortality, quality of life, and physical functioning between the two arms of the trial at 4 weeks or 3 months. Only one of 11 measures of patient satisfaction was significantly different: hospital at home patients perceived higher levels of involvement in decisions. Length of stay for those receiving routine hospital care was 62% (95% confidence interval 51% to 75%) of length of stay in hospital at home scheme. CONCLUSIONS: The early discharge hospital at home scheme was similar to routine hospital discharge in terms of effectiveness and acceptability. Increased length of stay associated with the scheme must be interpreted with caution because of different organisational characteristics of the services.

Hospital at home or acute hospital care? A cost minimisation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare, from the viewpoints of the NHS and social services and of patients, the costs associated with early discharge to a hospital at home scheme and those associated with continued care in an acute hospital. DESIGN: Cost minimisation analysis. SETTING: Acute hospital wards and the community in the north of Bristol (population about 224 000). SUBJECTS: 241 hospitalised but medically stable elderly patients who fulfilled the criteria for early discharge to a hospital at home scheme and who consented to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs to the NHS, social services, and patients over the 3 months after randomisation. RESULTS: The mean cost for hospital at home patients over the 3 months was 2516 pounds, whereas that for hospital patients was 3292 pounds. Under all the assumptions used in the sensitivity analysis, the cost of hospital at home care was less than that of hospital care. Only when hospital costs were assumed to be less than 50% of those used in the initial analysis was the difference equivocal. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital at home scheme is less costly than care in the acute hospital. These results may be generalisable to schemes of similar size and scope, operating in a similar context of rising acute admissions.