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

Abstract

<p><strong>Background</strong></p>\nhospital level healthcare in the home guided by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) might provide a less costly alternative to hospitalisation for older people.\n\n<p><strong>Objective</strong></p>\nto determine the cost-effectiveness of CGA admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) compared with hospital admission.\n\n<p><strong>Design/intervention</strong></p>\na cost-effectiveness study alongside a randomised trial of CGA in an admission avoidance HAH setting, compared with admission to hospital.\n\n<p><strong>Participants/setting</strong></p>\nolder 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).\n\n<p><strong>Measurements</strong></p>\nquality adjusted life years, resource use and costs at baseline and 6 months; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. The main analysis used complete cases.\n\n<p><strong>Results</strong></p>\nadjusting 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.\n\n<p><strong>Conclusions</strong></p>\nCGA HAH is a cost-effective alternative to admission to hospital for selected older people.

Topics & Concepts