|
Comparing the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of a new community in-reach rehabilitation service with the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of an established hospital-based rehabilitation service for older people: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with microcost and qualitative analysis – the Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) study |
Sahota O, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Marshall F, Montgomery A, Tan W, Sach T, Logan P, Kendrick D, Watson A, Walker M, Waring J |
|
|
Record Status This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database. Citation Sahota O, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Marshall F, Montgomery A, Tan W, Sach T, Logan P, Kendrick D, Watson A, Walker M, Waring J. Comparing the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of a new community in-reach rehabilitation service with the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of an established hospital-based rehabilitation service for older people: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with microcost and qualitative analysis – the Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) study. Health Services and Delivery Research 2016; 4(7) Authors' objectives To compare the clinical effectiveness, microcosts and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service in patients aged ≥ 70 years.
Older people represent a significant proportion of patients admitted to hospital as a medical emergency. Compared with the care of younger patients, their care is more challenging, their stay in hospital is much longer, their risk of hospital-acquired problems is much higher and their 28-day readmission rate is much greater. Authors' conclusions The CIRACT service did not reduce hospital length of stay or short-term readmission rates compared with the standard THB-Rehab service, although it was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it. The estimated ICER appears cost-effective although it is subject to much uncertainty, as shown by points spanning all four quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. Microcosting work-sampling methodology provides a useful method to estimate the cost of service provision. Limitations in sample size, which may have excluded a smaller reduction in length of stay, and lack of blinding, which may have introduced some cross-contamination between the two groups, must be recognised. Reducing hospital length of stay and hospital readmissions remains a priority for the NHS. Further studies are necessary, which should be powered with larger sample sizes and use cluster randomisation (to reduce bias) but, more importantly, should include a more integrated community health-care model as part of the CIRACT team. Indexing Status Subject indexing assigned by CRD MeSH Community Medicine; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hospitals; Humans; Patient Transfer; Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation Research; Treatment Outcome Language Published English Country of organisation England English summary An English language summary is available. Address for correspondence HS&DR Programme, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK Tel: +44 23 8059 4304
Email: hsdrinfo@southampton.ac.uk AccessionNumber 32016000326 Date abstract record published 02/03/2016 |
|
|
|