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

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.

Is Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home an Alternative to Hospital Admission for Older Persons? : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Delivering 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. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons. DESIGN: Multisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865). SETTING: 9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: 1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission. INTERVENTION: Admission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization. MEASUREMENTS: The 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. RESULTS: Participants 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). LIMITATION: The findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected. CONCLUSION: Admission 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 SOURCE: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Food for thought: food systems, livestock futures and animal health.

Global food security, livestock production and animal health are inextricably bound. However, our focus on the future tends to disaggregate food and health into largely separate domains. Indeed, much foresight work is either food systems or health-based with little overlap in terms of predictions or narratives. Work on animal health is no exception. Part of the problem is the fundamental misunderstanding of the role, nature and impact of the modern futures tool kit. Here, I outline three key issues in futures research ranging from methodological confusion over the application of scenarios to the failure to effectively integrate multiple methodologies to the gap between the need for more evidence and power and control over futures processes. At its core, however, a better understanding of the narrative and worldview framing much of the futures work in animal health is required to enhance the value and impact of such exercises.