Randomised controlled trial comparing an acute paediatric hospital at home scheme with conventional hospital care. Randomised controlled trial of home based care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Evaluation of a hospital diabetes specialist nursing service: a randomized controlled trial. The effectiveness, acceptability and costs of a hospital-at-home service compared with acute hospital care: a randomized controlled trial. Effects of a multidisciplinary, post-discharge continuance of care intervention on quality of life, discharge satisfaction, and hospital length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. Home-based versus hospital-based care for people with serious mental illness. Substitution of a nursing-led inpatient unit for acute services: randomized controlled trial of outcomes and cost of nursing-led intermediate care.
To assess the clinical effectiveness of a paediatric hospital at home service compared to conventional hospital care.
                A total of 399 children suffering from breathing difficulty (n = 202), diarrhoea and vomiting (n = 125), or fever (n = 72) were randomised to Hospital at Home or in-patient paediatric care. Main outcome measures were: comparative clinical effectiveness as measured by readmission rate within three months (used as a proxy for parental coping with illness); and length of stay/care and comparative satisfaction of both patients and carers.
                Clinical effectiveness of both services was not significantly different. Length of care was one day longer in the Hospital at Home group; however, most parents and children preferred home care.
                Hospital at Home is a clinically acceptable form of care for these groups of acute paediatric illness. Readmission rates within three months failed to show any advantage in terms of parental coping. Parents and patients expressed a strong preference for hospital at home. To evaluate usefulness of limited community based care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after discharge from hospital. Design: Randomised controlled trial.
                Liverpool Health Service and Macarthur Health Service in outer metropolitan Sydney between September 1999 and July 2000.
                177 patients randomised into an intervention group (84 patients) and a control group (93 patients) which received current usual care.
                Home visits by community nurse at one and four weeks after discharge and preventive general practitioner care.
                Frequency of patients' presentation and admission to hospital; changes in patients' disease-specific quality of life, measured with St George's respiratory questionnaire, over three months after discharge; patients' knowledge of illness, self management, and satisfaction with care at discharge and three months later; frequency of general practitioner and nurse visits and their satisfaction with care.
                Intervention and control groups showed no differences in presentation or admission to hospital or in overall functional status. However, the intervention group improved their activity scores and the control group worsened their symptom scores. While intervention group patients received more visits from community nurses and were more satisfied with their care, involvement of general practitioners was much less (with only 31% (22) remembering receiving a care plan). Patients in the intervention group had higher knowledge scores and were more satisfied. There were no differences in general practitioner visits or management.
                This brief intervention after acute care improved patients' knowledge and some aspects of quality of life. However, it failed to prevent presentation and readmission to hospital. To evaluate the effectiveness and cost implications of a hospital diabetes specialist nursing service.
                We conducted a prospective, open, randomized, controlled trial of standard in-patient care for adults with diabetes, with and without the intervention of a diabetes specialist nursing (DSN) service. The setting was a single UK university hospital.
                were unselected patients referred to the hospital DSN service. Primary outcome measures were length of hospital stay and patterns of readmission (frequency and time to first readmission). Secondary outcome measures were subjects' diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes knowledge score, satisfaction with treatment, and GP and community care contacts following discharge. Costs were estimated from the hospital and published sources.
                Median length of stay was lower in the intervention group (11.0 vs. 8.0 days, P < 0.01). Readmission rates were the same in the two groups (25%), and mean time to readmission was similar in the two groups, although slightly less in the control group (278 vs. 283 days, P = 0.80). The cost per patient for nursing input was 38.94 pounds sterling. However, when the reduced length of stay was accounted for, the intervention produced a mean cost per admission of 436 ponds sterling lower than that of the control group (P = 0.19). Patients in the intervention group were more knowledgeable regarding their diabetes and more satisfied with their care.
                Diabetes specialist nurses are potentially cost saving by reducing hospital length of stay (LOS). There was no evidence of an adverse effect of reduced LOS on re-admissions, use of community resources, or patient perception of quality of care. To compare the safety, effectiveness, acceptability and costs of a hospital-at-home programme with usual acute hospital inpatient care.
                Patients aged 55 years or over being treated for an acute medical problem were randomized to receive either standard inpatient hospital care or hospital-at-home care. Follow-up was for 90 days after randomization. Health outcome measures included physical and mental function, self-rated recovery, health status as assessed by the SF-36, adverse events and readmissions to hospital. Acceptability was assessed using satisfaction surveys and the Carer Strain Index. Costs comprised hospital care, care in the home, community services, general practitioner services and personal health care expenses.
                In all, 285 people were randomized with a mean age of 80 years. There were no significant differences in health outcome measures between the two randomized groups. Significantly more patients receiving care at home reported high levels of satisfaction, as did more of their relatives. Relatives of the care-at-home group also reported significantly lower scores on the Carer Strain Index. However, the mean cost per patient was almost twice for patients treated at home (NZ 6524 dollars) as for standard hospital care (NZ 3525 dollars). A sensitivity analysis indicated that, if the service providing care in the home had been operating at full capacity, the mean cost per patient episode would have been similar for both modes of care.
                This hospital-at-home programme was found to be more acceptable and as effective and safe as inpatient care. While caring for patients at home was significantly more costly than standard inpatient care, this was largely due to the hospital-at-home programme not operating at full capacity. To determine the impact of a hospital-coordinated discharge care plan, involving a multidisciplinary team of primary health care providers, on hospital length of stay, quality of life, and both patient and general practitioner inclusion in, and satisfaction with, discharge procedures.
                This investigation comprised a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial.
                This multicentre and cross-jurisdictional study focused on areas of tertiary and primary health care as well as community allied health in Western Australia.
                Patients (n = 189) with chronic cardiorespiratory diagnoses were recruited from respiratory, cardiovascular, and general medical wards at two tertiary hospitals.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Intervention group patients received a discharge care plan in accordance with that outlined in the Australian Enhanced Primary Care Package, completed before discharge and sent to the patient's general practitioner and other community service providers for review. Control patients were discharged under existing hospital processes. Outcome measures. Patients and general practitioners were surveyed pre-discharge and 7 days post-discharge for quality of life and opinion of discharge procedures. Hospital length of stay was also determined.
                Significant improvements in discharge planning involvement, health service access, confidence with discharge procedures, and opinion of discharge based on previous experience were seen for patients who received the discharge care plan. Further, improved perceptions of mental quality of life were observed within the first week post-discharge for intervention patients. Length of stay showed no difference between groups. Extent and speed of hospital-general practitioner communication were significantly improved via the intervention.
                Our results indicate that a multidisciplinary discharge care plan, initiated before separation, improves quality of life, involvement, and satisfaction with discharge care, and hospital-general practitioner integration. As such, it possesses benefits over current Western Australian hospital discharge procedures for the care of chronically ill populations. A controlled study tested whether the superior outcome of community care for serious mental illness (SMI) in Madison and in Sydney would also be found in inner London.
                Patients from an inner London catchment area who faced emergency admission for SMI (many were violent or suicidal) were randomised to 20 months or more of either home-based care (Daily Living Programme, DLP; n = 92), or standard in-patient and later out-patient care (controls, n = 97). Most DLP patients had brief in-patient stays at some time. Measures included number and duration of in-patient admissions, independent ratings of clinical and social function, and patients' and relatives' satisfaction.
                Outcome was superior with home-based care. Until month 20, DLP care improved symptoms and social adjustment slightly more, and enhanced patients' and relatives' satisfaction. From 3 to 18 months DLP care greatly reduced the number of in-patient bed days as long as the DLP team was responsible for any in-patient phase its patients had. Cost was less. DLP care did not reduce the number of admissions, nor of deaths from self-harm (3 DLP, 2 control). One DLP patient killed a child. Even at 20 months many DLP and control patients still had severe symptoms, poor social adjustment, no job, and need for assertive follow-up and heavy staff input. (Beyond 20 months most gains were lost apart from satisfaction.)
                It is unclear how much the gain until 20 months from home-based care was due to its site of care, its being problem-centred, its teaching of daily living skills, its assertive follow-up, the home care team's keeping responsibility for any in-patient phase, its coordination of total care (case management), or to other care components. Home-based care is hard to organise and vulnerable to many factors, and needs careful training and clinical audit if gains are to be sustained. To evaluate the outcome and cost of transfer to a nursing-led inpatient unit for 'intermediate care'. The unit was designed to replace a period of care in acute hospital wards and promote recovery before discharge to the community.
                Randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes of care on a nursing-led inpatient unit with the system of consultant-managed care on a range of acute hospital wards.
                hospital wards in an acute inner-London National Health Service trust.
                175 patients assessed to be medically stable but requiring further inpatient care, referred to the unit from acute wards.
                89 patients were randomly allocated to care on the unit (nursing-led care with no routine medical intervention) and 86 to usual hospital care.
                Length of hospital stay, discharge destination, functional dependence (Barthel index) and direct healthcare costs.
                Care in the unit had no significant impact on discharge destination or dependence. Length of inpatient stay was significantly increased for the treatment group (P=0.036; 95% confidence interval 1.1-20.7 days). The daily cost of care was lower on the unit, but the mean total cost was pound sterlings 1044 higher-although the difference from the control was not significant (P=0.150; 95% confidence interval - pound sterlings 382 to pound sterlings 2471).
                The nursing-led inpatient unit led to longer hospital stays. Since length of stay is the main driver of costs, this model of care-at least as implemented here-may be more costly. However, since the unit may substitute for both secondary and primary care, longer-term follow-up is needed to determine whether patients are better prepared for discharge under this model of care, resulting in reduced primary-care costs.
Current research does not provide supporting evidence for a reduction in access to hospital services or a reduction in hospital readmission rate for children with acute and chronic illnesses using specialist home-based nursing services; however, the only summary finding across a few studies was that there is a significant decrease in length of hospitalisation. The preliminary results show no adverse impact on physical health outcomes and a number of papers reported improved satisfaction with home-based care. Further trials are required, measuring health, satisfaction, service utilisation and long-term costs.