U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Guideline Centre (UK). Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2018 Mar. (NICE Guideline, No. 94.)

Cover of Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation

Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation.

Show details

Chapter 12Alternatives to hospital care

12. Alternatives to hospital care

12.1. Introduction

There is an increasing evidence base to support the treatment of some acute medical illnesses using ambulatory care, that is, where patients receive treatment whilst staying in their own home or care home after a clinical assessment. In addition, there is an increasing recognition that not all patients have a good experience of hospital bed based care, and that treatment in the usual place of residence would be preferable if safe to do so with an appropriate care model in place.

Whilst there are policy statements from national bodies that are supportive of greater provision of alternatives to hospital care for acute medical illness, there is current uncertainty over the most clinically and cost-effective models of alternatives to hospital care.

12.2. Review question: Does community-based intermediate care improve outcomes compared with hospital care?

For full details see review protocol in Appendix A.

Table 1. PICO characteristics of review question.

Table 1

PICO characteristics of review question.

12.2.1. Definitions of the different alternatives to hospital care evaluated in this review

12.2.1.1. Intermediate Care (IC)

The development of IC services was set out in 2001 within the National Service Framework for Older People. The aims of IC were stated as being to:

  • promote faster recovery from illness,
  • support timely discharge from hospital,
  • prevent unnecessary acute hospital admission,
  • maximise independent living.

The expectation was of multi-agency working based on comprehensive geriatric assessment, with short-term interventions to enable users to remain or resume living at home.

Definition of intermediate care

The definition of intermediate care provided in the Department of Health paper ‘Intermediate Care - Halfway Home’80 was used; “a range of integrated services to promote faster recovery from illness, prevent unnecessary acute hospital admission and premature admission to long-term residential care, support timely discharge from hospital and maximise independent living”. The guidance makes clear that intermediate care services involve multi-disciplinary team working. Although homecare reablement is included within intermediate care services in some areas, services that do not have a clinical health element are not included.

The National Intermediate Care Audit demonstrates that intermediate care does increase the likelihood of returning home, improve the ability to perform activities of daily living and also increases the achievement of person specific goals. However, there is significant variation in delivery between regions throughout England and unfortunately at present it is not making a difference to the whole-system due to the lack of capacity within the service.214

Classification of Intermediate Care Schemes (as taken from the Department of Health ‘Audit of Intermediate Care’, 2008)
i. Home from hospital

A home from hospital scheme generally aims to provide short-term post-discharge care at a more intensive level than would normally be provided by professionals such as District Nursing. Home from hospital schemes are generally delivered in the user’s own home and led by nursing staff, sometimes with input from medical and allied health professionals.

ii. Rapid response schemes

Rapid response schemes generally aim to support a user in their own home or other location either as a means of preventing admission or as a means of facilitating discharge from the acute hospital sector. Usually led by either a nurse or allied health professional, rapid response schemes can cover a wide range of interventions including administration of intravenous therapies, peg tube and catheter replacement, crisis psychiatric care and provide enhanced care to palliative care patients.

iii. Step up/down schemes

Step up/down schemes usually provide care in a setting other than an acute hospital and this can include a residential or, more usually, a nursing home. Time limited in nature, these schemes aim to either prevent admission to hospital, or aid in the discharge and transfer back home from hospital. Step up/down schemes can be aimed at similar patients to both rapid response and rehabilitation. However, normally the users require more intensive therapy or continuous monitoring than could be provided in their own home.

iv. Rehabilitation schemes

The delivery of community rehabilitation is cognisant with the role of intermediate care which has been promoted by the Department of Health. Rehabilitation is defined as “a process aiming to restore personal autonomy to those aspects of daily life considered most relevant by patients and service users, and their family carers” (Kings Fund, 1998). It is believed that this form of care will reduce the burden on the NHS through the promotion of independence.

Rehabilitation schemes usually provide time limited therapy for patients who require on-going allied health support (generally physiotherapy or occupational therapy) to regain maximum independence. Users of rehabilitation schemes will often have sustained some form of fracture and may also have undergone surgery. Rehabilitation schemes can be delivered by a multi-disciplinary team, but are often led by physiotherapists and/or occupational therapists. These schemes may be longer-term in nature than other types of schemes.

Rehabilitation is defined as the process of restoration of skills by a person who has had an illness or injury so as to regain maximum self-sufficiency and function in a normal or as near normal manner as possible. Rehabilitation is a process aiming to restore personal autonomy to those aspects of daily life considered most relevant to patients, service users and their carers. It can be delivered at a community hospital, residential home or within a patient’s own home.

v. Stroke schemes

Stroke schemes tend to provide a high level of support for those patients who have undergone a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and to provide a high level of rehabilitation, usually in the users own home, to assist them in gaining an increased level of independence. Stroke schemes can be delivered by a multi-disciplinary team that includes medical, nursing, allied health and social work, and also can include the assistance of generic rehabilitation assistants (covering physiotherapy and occupational therapy). These schemes may be longer-term in nature than other types of schemes.

vi. Community hospital schemes

Community hospital schemes usually provide acute hospital ward type care, but generally under the management of GPs rather than consultants. Community hospital schemes can provide nursing, rehabilitation or step up/down type care and are generally aimed at those users who require a high level of supervision or the administration of medicines or interventions which would not be suitable for a nursing home or a users’ own home setting.

vii. Miscellaneous schemes

These schemes included a range of schemes which did not directly fit into one of the classifications previously described. They included an ED assessment team, a twilight nursing team, and a long-term behaviour support team. It could be debated whether these schemes can truly be classified as intermediate.

Image ch12f1

Within the Intermediate tier there is distinction between:

viii.

Enabling Homecare - which provides the fundamental building block of a care system where optimised independence and choice is a primary goal. This is aimed at ensuring such skills are maintained by the individual and will be found across the whole care system including any homecare delivered as part of an intermediate tier.

ix.

Reablement - for people with poor physical or mental health or disability where there is potential to improve independence and choice by learning or re-learning the skills necessary for daily living; and:

When referring to reablement in this context it is also helpful to distinguish between:

  • Intake reablement - where all new referrals to adult social services (in particular home care) are considered for reablement; and
  • Targeted reablement - where referrals to reablement are received from specific sources, normally hospital discharge or to prevent hospital admission.
x.

Hospital-at-home care is generally defined as the community based provision of services usually associated with acute inpatient care.

“Hospital-at-home” programs are defined by the provision, in patients’ own homes and for a limited period, of a specific service that requires active participation by health care professionals. The care tends to be multidisciplinary and may include technical services, such as intravenous services.

Many disparate models have been developed under the hospital-at-home label, leading to difficulties in evaluating their effectiveness.

Key features of the Johns Hopkins “hospital-at-home” model:

  • A substitutive model providing hospital-level care for patients living in a specified geographic catchment area delineated by 30 minute travel time.
  • Eligible patients are those with certain acute illnesses that require hospital-level care who also meet previously validated medical eligibility criteria.
  • Robust input from physicians (at least daily visits and 24 hour coverage) and nurses (initial continuous nursing care following by intermittent visits and 24 hour coverage).
  • Patient retains inpatient status and the hospital or health system retains responsibility for the acute care episode.
  • Care is provided in a coordinated manner similar to that in an inpatient ward.

xi. The Virtual Ward

Virtual wards are a form of preventive hospital-at-home for patients at high predicted risk of unplanned hospital admission.

A model of home-based coordinated care with the aim of reducing hospital admissions in a relatively low-cost manner. The “virtual ward” program provides multidisciplinary case management services to people who have been identified, using a predictive model, as high risks for future emergency hospitalisation. Virtual wards use the systems, staffing and daily routine of a hospital ward to deliver preventive care to patients in their own homes. The Virtual Wards work just like a hospital ward, using the same staffing, systems and daily routines, except that the people being cared for stay in their own homes throughout.

Virtual wards seek to improve integration through a number of strategies, including a shared record, multidisciplinary team meetings (“ward rounds”) and an automated alert system for informing virtual ward staff when a patient accesses another care service, such as attending local ED. Another strategy for promoting integration was to include a social worker as a core member of the virtual ward staff. In this regard, it could be argued that virtual wards are an adaptation of the public health model of chronic disease management described by Kendall and colleagues but rather than integrating health and education, virtual wards instead aim to provide patients with a well organised and coordinated service that crosses the health care and social care sectors.

Community matrons

Community matrons are highly experienced senior nurses who work closely with patients in the community to provide, plan and organise their care. They mainly work with those with a serious long term or complex range of conditions. They therefore have an important role in the management of chronic long-term disease and multi-morbidity. These patients account a large consumption of NHS resources. Clear leadership, guidance and communication between the many services which are involved in the patient care is important to avoid mishaps. Therefore, the community matron is ideally placed to deliver this with the appropriate training and support. This review will determine if increasing the remit of community matrons and increasing the number of locations where community matrons can be accessed improves patient outcomes.

12.3. Clinical evidence

We searched for systematic reviews and randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of alternatives to hospital care (hospital at home, step-up/down care, rapid response schemes and virtual wards) with hospital care to improve outcomes for patients.

Thirty four randomised controlled trials were identified that compared alternatives to hospital care with hospital care. We identified 3 Cochrane reviews evaluating different alternatives to hospital care. All the reviews were assessed for relevance to the review protocol and methodology and were adapted and updated as part of this systematic review. The classification of interventions of the studies included in the Cochrane reviews did not match the definitions of interventions pre-specified by the guideline committee. We re-classified the studies included in the Cochrane reviews according to the definitions of the interventions (see section 12.2.1). Data for the studies presented in the Cochrane reviews has been included in the analysis. We have updated the Cochrane reviews with randomised controlled trials found from the search.

The studies have been classified in 2 strata- admission avoidance and early discharge. Admission avoidance is a service that provides active treatment by health care professionals outside hospital for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital in-patient admission. Early discharge is a service that provides active treatment by health care professionals outside hospital for a condition that otherwise would require continued acute hospital in-patient care.

Within each strata, the studies have been grouped according to the type of service provided: hospital at home led by primary care, hospital at home led by secondary care, hospital at home led by primary and secondary care, step-up/down care and virtual wards.

12.3.1. Individual patient data (IPD) analysis

Two Cochrane reviews that met the protocol criteria for the alternatives to hospital care review (1 in the strata for early discharge and 1in the strata for admission avoidance) presented IPD analysis as well as RCT level meta-analysis.

Details of analyses presented in both Cochrane reviews are:

  • Review strata 1 –Admission avoidance: Cochrane review on hospital at home admission avoidance. The review includes 10 trials.
    • 4 trials were included in the IPD analysis (hazard ratios and log hazard ratios presented for 2 of our protocol outcomes; mortality and admissions).
    • All 10 trials were included in the RCT meta-analysis. The RCT meta-analyses included RCT data from the 4 trials included in the IPD meta-analysis.
  • Review strata 2- Early discharge: Cochrane review on hospital at home early discharge. The review includes 26 trials.
    • 13 trials were included in the IPD analysis (hazard ratios and log hazard ratios presented for 2 of our protocol outcomes; mortality and admissions).
    • All 26 trials were included in the RCT meta-analysis. The RCT meta-analyses included RCT data from the 13 trials included in the IPD meta-analysis.

The results of the IPD analysis have been presented as part of this evidence review (see section D.3, Appendix D).

See also the study selection flow chart in Appendix B, study evidence tables in Appendix E, forest plots in Appendix D, GRADE tables in Appendix G and excluded studies list in Appendix H.

12.3.2. Summary of included studies

Following is a summary of the number of studies included for each of the interventions:

  • Hospital at home (led by primary care):
    • Number of studies identified in Cochrane reviews: 10.
    • Number of studies identified from search: 4.
  • Hospital at home (led by secondary care):
    • Number of studies identified in Cochrane reviews: 4.
    • Number of studies identified from search: 3.
  • Hospital at home (led by primary and secondary care):
    • Number of studies identified in Cochrane reviews: 7.
    • Number of studies identified from search: 1.
  • Virtual wards:
    • Number of studies identified in Cochrane reviews: 0.
    • Number of studies identified from search: 2.
  • Step up/down care:
    • Number of studies identified in Cochrane reviews: 0.
    • Number of studies identified from search: 5

See Table 2 below for details of the PICO characteristics of the studies included in the review.

Table 2. Summary of studies included in the review.

Table 2

Summary of studies included in the review.

Table 3. Summary GRADE profiles for alternatives compared with hospital care.

Table 3

Summary GRADE profiles for alternatives compared with hospital care.

Narrative findings
Length of hospital stay
Cotton 200067

Mean length of initial admission (range) for the early discharge group 3.2 (1-16) and for conventional management 6.1 (1-13).

Richards 2005242

The median number of days to discharge in the home group was 4 (range: 1-14), compared with 2 (range, 0-10) in the hospital group (p=0.004).

Wilson 1999312

Analyses by intention to treat showed significantly shorter stays in care for the hospital at home group than for the hospital group (median initial stay, 8 days versus 14.5 days, p=0.026); median total days of care in 3 months, 9 days versus 16 days, p=0.031.

Donald 199589

At 6 months the hospital at home total days in hospital (after study entry) of 22.5 (IQR 5-30) and the control group a mean number of days of 20.2 (IQR 8-27).

Applegate 199016

The mean length of stay in the geriatric assessment unit was 23.6 (+/-13.2) days. For the high risk stratum, the average stay was 28.6 (+/-14.4days) and for the lower risk stratum it was 21.1 (+/-11.9) days.

Zimmer 1985325

Mean length of hospital stay during first 6 months for intervention (n=81) was 12.6 days and for control was 14.3 days.

Emergency department visits
Aiken 20066

In the 6 months prior to the onset of PhoenixCare intervention, PhoenixCare participants averaged 0.12 emergency department visits per month (SD=0.18). Control participants averaged 0.11 emergency department visits per month (SD=0.02). This level of utilisation remained essentially unchanged during the intervention, with averages of 0.11 (SD=0.34) and 0.10 (SD=0.31) visits per month for Phoenix Care and control participants, respectively.

Zimmer 1985325

Mean ED visits per patient per month for days at risk in the first 6 months of study; intervention (n=81) 0.26 and control (n=75) 0.05.

Quality of Life
Applegate 199016

The group assigned to the geriatric assessment unit had significantly more improvement (p<0.05) than the control group in regard to 3 basic self-care activities (bathing, dressing and the ability to transfer) during the 6 months after randomisation.

Patient satisfaction
Richards 2005242

Patient satisfaction with medical and nursing care was high in both groups, but significantly higher in the home care group (p=0.001). In the home care group, all patients reported that they were ‘very happy’ with their care. In the hospital care group, 60% were ‘very happy’, 32% ‘quite happy’ and 8% ‘neither happy nor unhappy’.

Wilson 2002314

Patient satisfaction was greater with Hospital at Home than with hospital. Reasons included a more personal style of care and a feeling that staying at home was therapeutic. Carers did not feel that Hospital at Home imposed an extra workload.

Skwarska277

Replies to the questionnaires on satisfaction with the service were received from 69% of the patients treated at home, 95% of whom said they were ‘completely satisfied’ with the services and 90% felt they had been cared for just as well or better at home than they would have been in hospital.

Young 2007322

The reported patient satisfaction was similar for both groups. At 1 week after hospital discharge, the community hospital group showed greater satisfaction with the statement ‘I am happy with the amount of recovery I have made’ (odds ratio=2.12, 95% CI=1.30-3.46; p=0.004).

Zimmer 1985325

Mean unadjusted patient satisfaction scores at 6 months for the community palliative group was 95.0 (n=31; p=not statically significant) and for the control group 89.3 (n=22; p=not statically significant).

Carer satisfaction
Donald 199589

There were 13 HAH carers and 7 control group carers, all of whom were interviewed at each assessment. A large majority of carers were happy with the timing of discharge. Questions ratings carer’s opinions of how good they were at the caring role, and how well they were coping, were answered similarly with 2 HAH carers and 1 control group carer admitting difficulties in coping. No clear differences between the groups emerged, but the numbers were small.

Carer stress
Tibaldi 2009296

The level of stress of the caregiver was high on admission in both groups but more severe in caregivers of Geriatric Home Hospital Service (relative stress scale score, 25.4 [16.6] versus 17.1 [10.8] in the general medical ward group; p=0.003).

12.4. Economic evidence

Twelve economic evaluations, published in 13 papers, relating to hospital-at-home, virtual wards and step-up/step down community care have been included in this review.7,23,102,118,202,204,229,235,242,288,292,296,304 One study204 was relevant to all 3 of these strata.

These are summarised in the economic evidence profile tables (Table 4, to Table 10) and the economic evidence tables in Appendix E.

Table 10. Economic evidence profile: Rapid response scheme versus usual inpatient care.

Table 10

Economic evidence profile: Rapid response scheme versus usual inpatient care.

One study239 of hospital-at-home was excluded due to very serious limitations and three more17,165,225 were selectively excluded because there was better quality evidence available. One paper relating to step-up/step-down interventions was identified but was excluded due to the availability of more applicable evidence.221 Another paper relating to virtual wards was identified but excluded due to serious limitations.186 All of these are listed in Appendix H, with reasons for exclusion given.

The economic article selection protocol and flow chart for the whole guideline can found in the guideline’s Appendix 41A and Appendix 41B.

Table 4. Economic evidence summary - Hospital at home versus inpatient care.

Table 4

Economic evidence summary - Hospital at home versus inpatient care.

Table 5. Economic evidence profile: Hospital at home versus inpatient hospital care – Admission avoidance.

Table 5

Economic evidence profile: Hospital at home versus inpatient hospital care – Admission avoidance.

Table 6. Economic evidence profile: Hospital at home versus inpatient hospital care – Early discharge.

Table 6

Economic evidence profile: Hospital at home versus inpatient hospital care – Early discharge.

Table 7. Economic evidence profile: Hospital at home versus inpatient hospital care – Both admission avoidance and early discharge.

Table 7

Economic evidence profile: Hospital at home versus inpatient hospital care – Both admission avoidance and early discharge.

Table 8. Economic evidence profile: Step up/Step-down care versus inpatient hospital care.

Table 8

Economic evidence profile: Step up/Step-down care versus inpatient hospital care.

Table 9. Economic evidence profile: Virtual wards care versus inpatient care.

Table 9

Economic evidence profile: Virtual wards care versus inpatient care.

12.5. Evidence statements

12.5.1. Clinical

Strata – Early discharge

Six studies comprising 591 people evaluated the role of hospital at home led by primary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by primary care may provide a benefit in reduced admissions (6 studies, low quality), presentations to ED (1 study, moderate quality), hospital length of stay (1 study, moderate quality), quality of life (various scores reported total of 5 studies, low to moderate quality) and patient satisfaction (continuous outcome: 2 studies, high quality and dichotomous; 1 study, moderate quality). The evidence suggested that there was no effect on mortality (5 studies, low quality) and there was a possible reduction in carer satisfaction (1 study, moderate quality) in hospital at home led by primary care compared to hospital care.

One study comprising 197 people evaluated the role of hospital at home led by secondary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by secondary care may provide a benefit in reduced re-admissions (1 study, very low quality). There was a possible increase in mortality (1 study, very low quality) in hospital at home led by secondary care compared to hospital care.

Five studies comprising 895 people evaluated the role of hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence showed that hospital at home led by primary and secondary care provided a benefit in reduced admissions (5 studies, moderate quality), and carer satisfaction (1 study, moderate quality). The evidence suggested that there was no effect on mortality (4 studies, very low quality). There was an increase in re-admissions (1 study, moderate quality) and length of stay (1 study, moderate quality) in hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care compared to hospital care. Evidence on quality of life showed no difference in 1 study and an improvement in another study (both moderate quality). Similarly, patient satisfaction in 1 study showed no difference the other showed an improvement (both high quality).

Three studies comprising 1008 people evaluated the role of step-up/down care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that step-up/down care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality (3 studies, low quality) and readmissions compared to hospital care. There was a suggested increase in length of stay (2 studies, very low quality) in step-up/down care compared to hospital care.

One study comprising 57 people evaluated the role of virtual wards in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that virtual wards may provide a benefit in reduced mortality (1 study, very low quality). The evidence suggested that there was no effect on quality of life (1 study, moderate quality) in virtual wards compared to hospital care.

Strata – Admission avoidance

Four studies comprising 571 people evaluated the role of hospital at home led by primary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by primary care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality (2 studies, moderate quality) and quality of life on SF-12 physical scores ((1 study, moderate quality). The evidence suggested that there was no effect on days to discharge (1 study, low quality). There was an increase in readmissions under 30 days (2 studies, high quality), adverse events (1 study, low quality) and reduced patient satisfaction (1 study, high quality) in hospital at home led by primary care compared to hospital care. No difference was identified for admissions over 30 days (2 studies, low quality) and quality of life on SF-12 mental scores (1 study, low quality).

Four studies comprising 329 people evaluated the role of hospital at home led by secondary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by secondary care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality (4 studies, low quality), reduced admissions after 30 days (3 studies, low quality), improved patient satisfaction (1 study, high quality) and quality of life (3 different scores reported, low to moderate quality). The evidence suggested that there was increased length of stay (2 studies, low quality) in hospital at home led by secondary care compared to hospital care.

Two studies comprising 252 people evaluated the role of hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by primary and secondary care may provide a benefit in improved patient satisfaction (1 study, low quality), carer satisfaction (1 study, high quality) and reduced adverse events (1 study, low quality). There was a possible increase in mortality (1 study, low quality), admissions (2 studies, low quality) and reduced quality of life (1 study, moderate quality) in hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care compared to hospital care.

One study comprising 155 people evaluated the role of step-up/down care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested step-up/down care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality (1 study, moderate quality) and length of stay (1 study, low quality) compared to hospital care.

One study comprising 1920 people evaluated the role of virtual wards in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that virtual wards provide a benefit in reduced mortality (1 study, low quality), reduced re-admissions (1 study, high quality) and presentations to ED (1 study, high quality) compared to hospital care.

12.5.2. Economic

Four cost-effectiveness analyses and one cost-utility analysis found that hospital at home led by secondary care dominated inpatient care. One cost analysis found it to be cost saving (cost difference: £600 per patient) and one cost effectiveness analysis showed that inpatient care was more costly and more effective (£46,000 per extra patient with no decline in respiratory function). These studies were assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.

One cost-utility analysis found that inpatient care was not cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY compared with hospital at home led by primary care but it was cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained (ICER:£24,000 per QALY gained). One cost-effectiveness analysis found that inpatient care was dominated. One cost-effectiveness analysis found that inpatient care was more effective but more costly (£4,000 per adverse event avoided). These studies were assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.

One cost-effectiveness analysis found that hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care dominated inpatient care. This study was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.

One cost-utility analysis found that step up/step down was cost effective compared with inpatient care (ICER: £16,300 per QALY gained). One cost comparison study found that it was cost saving (cost difference: £115 per patient). These studies were assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.

One cost comparison study found that virtual wards are cost saving (cost difference: £404 per patient). This study was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.

One cost comparison study found that rapid response and early supported discharge was cost saving (cost difference: £116 per patient). This study was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.

12.6. Recommendations and link to evidence

Recommendations
6.

Provide multidisciplinary intermediate care as an alternative to hospital care to prevent admission and promote earlier discharge. Ensure that the benefits and risks of the various types of intermediate care are discussed with the person and their family or carera.

Research recommendations -
Relative values of different outcomes

Quality of life, mortality, avoidable adverse events, patient and/or carer satisfaction and number of admissions to hospital were considered by the committee to be critical outcomes.

Number of GP presentations, readmission, length of hospital stay and number of presentations to the Emergency Department were considered by the committee to be important outcomes.

Trade-off between benefits and harms

This review examined evidence for the following interventions:

  • Hospital at home.
  • Step up/down care.
  • Virtual wards.
  • Rapid responses schemes (no evidence available).
The studies in the reviews have been classified into 2 strata depending on the main purpose of the intervention; admission avoidance and early discharge.

Admission avoidance: where a service that provides active treatment by health care professionals outside hospital for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital in-patient admission. Patients may avoid admission to an acute hospital ward after receiving community based care.

Early discharge: where a service that provides active treatment by health care professionals outside hospital for a condition that otherwise would require continued acute hospital in-patient care. Patients may be discharged early from hospital to receive care in the community.

Hospital at home

There was evidence from 36 RCTs comparing hospital at home (led by primary care, secondary care or both primary and secondary care), step-up/down care and virtual wards. The studies were categorised into 2 strata: hospital at home services focussing on early discharge and hospital at home services focussing on admission avoidance. Within each category, the evidence was classified into hospital at home led by primary care, hospital at home led by secondary care, hospital at home led by primary and secondary care, step up/down care and virtual wards.

Stratum – Early discharge

Hospital at home led by primary care

Six studies evaluated hospital at home led by primary care compared to usual hospital care. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by primary care may provide a benefit in reduced admissions, presentations to ED, hospital length of stay, quality of life and patient satisfaction. The evidence suggested that there was no effect on mortality and there was reduced carer satisfaction in hospital at home led by primary care compared to usual hospital care. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, GP presentations or readmissions.

Hospital at home led by secondary care

Two studies evaluated hospital at home led by secondary care compared to usual hospital care. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by secondary care may provide a benefit in reduced re-admissions. However, there was a possible increase in mortality. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, quality of life, patient satisfaction, length of stay, length of stay in programme, presentation to ED, admissions and GP presentations.

Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care

Five studies evaluated hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care compared to usual hospital care. The evidence showed a benefit in reduced admissions, and carer satisfaction compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that there was no effect on mortality. There was an increase in re-admissions (30 days) and length of stay (days in treatment) in hospital at home led primary and secondary care compared to usual hospital care. Evidence on quality of life and on patient satisfaction was either neutral or suggested a trend for improvement. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, length of stay in programme, presentation to ED and presentation to GP.

Step-up/down care

Three studies evaluated step-up/down care compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that step-up/down care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality and readmissions compared to hospital care. There was a suggested increase in length of stay (initial inpatient days) in step-up down care compared to hospital care.

No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, quality of life, patient satisfaction, length of stay in programme, number of presentations to ED, number of GP presentations and admissions.

Virtual wards

One study evaluated virtual wards compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that virtual wards may provide a benefit in reduced mortality compared to hospital care but there was no effect on quality of life. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, length of stay in programme, number of presentation to ED, number of admissions to hospital, number of GP presentation and readmission.

Stratum – Admission avoidance

There was variation in how these diverse admission avoidance schemes operated. Some schemes admitted patients directly from the community and some from the emergency department.

The majority of the trials included in the admission avoidance strata recruited elderly patients with medical events like stroke and COPD requiring admission to hospital.

The committee considered that avoiding readmission was likely to be particularly important for people with chronic conditions as in this group hospital admission might have a disproportionately adverse effect on psychological wellbeing and independence.

Hospital at home led by primary care

Four studies evaluated the role of hospital at home led by primary care in adults and young people at risk of an AME, or with a suspected or confirmed AME. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by primary care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality and quality of life on SF-12physical scores. The evidence suggested that there was no effect on days to discharge. There was an increase in readmissions under 30 days, adverse events and reduced patient satisfaction in hospital at home led by primary care compared to hospital care. No difference was identified for admissions over 30 days and quality of life on SF-12 mental scores.

Hospital at home led by secondary care

Four studies evaluated hospital at home led by secondary care compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by secondary care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality, admissions (>30 days), improved patient satisfaction and quality of life compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that there was increased length of stay in hospital at home led by secondary care compared to hospital care. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, length of stay in programme, number of presentations to ED, number of GP presentations and readmission.

Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care

Two studies evaluated hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that hospital at home led by primary and secondary care may provide a benefit in improved patient satisfaction, carer satisfaction and reduced adverse events compared to hospital care. There was a possible increase in mortality, admissions (>30 days) and reduced quality of life in hospital at home led by primary and secondary care compared to hospital care. No evidence was identified for length of stay, length of stay in programme, number of presentations to ED, number of GP presentation and readmission.

Step-up down care

One study evaluated step-up/down care compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested step-up/down care may provide a benefit in reduced mortality and length of stay compared to hospital care. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, quality of life, patient satisfaction, length of stay in programme, number of presentations to ED, number of GP presentations and readmissions.

Virtual wards

One study evaluated virtual wards compared to hospital care. The evidence suggested that virtual wards provide a benefit in reduced mortality, reduced re-admissions (30 days) and presentations to ED compared to hospital care. No evidence was identified for avoidable adverse events, quality of life, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, length of stay in programme, number of admissions to hospital and number of GP presentations.

Rapid response schemes

No evidence was available to evaluate rapid response schemes.

Overall

The committee chose to recommend alternatives to hospital care given the potential benefits in patient and carer satisfaction, facilitation of early discharge and prevention of hospital admission, if there is a discussion of the potential benefits and risks with the patient and their carer. The committee also concluded that RCT evidence supported the concept that, with appropriate patient selection, hospital at home schemes could be considered safe.

The committee discussed what type of alternatives to hospital care should be recommended: hospital at home, community-based intermediate care or community-based care. This review did not search for data that specifically compared different schemes. The committee agreed that service development would need to be undertaken collaboratively between primary and secondary care.

The committee noted that ‘hospital-at-home’ was not easily defined and that there were some regions in which community-based intermediate care could differ. Therefore, the committee chose to recommend community-based intermediate care generally, rather than specifying the precise content of the various interventions.

The committee also noted that there were many different schemes and with different names, which could be confusing for the patient as well as the service provider. It was however felt that, despite this, if one concentrated on what each individual scheme provided to the patient then they were very similar. They generally involved nurses and/or therapists with medical support providing nursing care, rehabilitative therapy, education and support to a patient in the community with an aim to promote independence, prevent admission and facilitate discharge. Indeed, it was felt that if the names of the services were simplified under 1 heading, it would be much easier to understand and the focus could be on the level of support and care the patient required.

The committee wished to clarify that community-based care should only be provided where equivalent care could be provided in a non-hospital based setting and following appropriate risk stratification using appropriate diagnostics, clinical presentation, patient preference, history and safety netting. The committee noted that there were some groups of people (for example, people with life threatening conditions such as acute myocardial infarction) in whom the provision of care in a non-hospital based setting was not appropriate in the acute stage.

Trade-off between net effects and costs

Hospital at home

Eleven economic evaluations were included covering the 3 models of hospital at home (secondary care-led, primary care-led and mixed model). This evidence consistently showed that hospital at home schemes can be provided at a lower cost for a variety of patient groups. Seven studies showed that hospital at home was dominant when compared to inpatient care, where it appeared to improve outcomes as well as lower costs. This was the case for all three of the full economic evaluations of interventions combining both admission avoidance and early discharge. In the remaining three studies, the health benefit for hospital care was small and did not appear to be cost effective. Cost savings were greatest for those interventions that included admission avoidance.

The committee highlighted the importance of assessing patients’ risk before referring them to be cared for under a hospital-at home service, which was in line with the inclusion criteria of the included studies. The committee also highlighted the importance of providing 24-hour access to care for hospital-at-home patients as currently available hospital-at-home services differ in terms of the hours that they operate. For example, the committee noted that most of the included studies provided 24-hour access to the service, either in person or via phone. The provision of these services across a 24 hour, 7-day period may affect cost in terms of both staff costs as well as its impact on patients’ safety and efficacy. Anecdotally, the committee noted that many schemes provided extended day hours or 24 hours a day but services are shared with other out-of-hour services.

Step up/step-down models

One economic evaluation showed that care in a community hospital was cost effective compared to inpatient care, at a cost of £16,400 per QALY gained, which is below the NICE threshold. A cost simulation study showed that long-term costs were lower but it would take more than 5 years to break even because of the time taken to build up credibility and reach optimal scale.

Virtual wards

One cost simulation study showed that long-term costs were lower but it would take about 5 years to break even.

Rapid response schemes

A cost simulation study showed that long-term costs were lower but it would take more than 5 years to break even.

Quality of evidence

Overall, the quality of the evidence was graded from very low to high. Evidence was downgraded and this was mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.

The economic evidence for hospital at home was rated as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations, since QALYs were rarely measured, only two studies were set in the UK and the effectiveness evidence was not based on a systematic review.

Other considerations

The committee highlighted that they were aware of observational studies of alternatives to hospital care but wished to prioritise the inclusion of higher quality, RCT evidence for inclusion in the review.

The committee emphasised that where possible, decisions about treatment location should be made collaboratively with the patient. It was noted that patient acceptability would need to be determined on a case by case basis. It is important that patients should be involved in discussions of risks and benefits.

Overall it was felt the provision of intermediate care as an alternative to hospital admission should be supported and developed in view of the evidence reviewed. It also fits with the NHS Five Year Forward View by providing more care in the community, but supported by primary and secondary care in an integrated way. The health economic data suggests that this model of care may be cost saving which is another important issue for the NHS in the ensuing years. Although it is likely that in the initial phase in development or expansion of schemes they may be costlier and will take some years to break even, and then become cost saving as some of the economic evidence showed. One barrier to the development of this model of care could be the conflict between primary and secondary care. The skills and resources of both sectors and the third sector (voluntary) will need to be harnessed for such models of care to work. It is also important that areas of good practice are shared. Simplification of delivery of intermediate care would also be of use; rather than focussing on the title of the service, it would be better if the needs of the patient are the focus of delivery of care. This would probably allow services between regions to be compared with each other and benchmarking of services.

The National Audit of Intermediate Care214 defines intermediate care in 4 categories:

  • Crisis response.
  • Home-based intermediate care.
  • Bed-based intermediate care.
  • Reablement.
The committee discussed existing guidance from NICE on social care and felt is was appropriate to cross reference the following guideline:
  • Transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care home settings for adults with social care needs (2015).210
  • Older people with social care needs and multiple long-term conditions (2015).209
  • Transition between inpatient mental health settings and community or care home settings (2016).212
  • Home care: delivering personal care and practical support to older people living in their own homes (2015).208
  • Intermediate care including reablement (2017).213
  • Managing medicines for adults receiving social care in the community (2017).211

References

1.
Swing-beds meet patients needs and improve hospitals cash-flow. Hospitals. 1982; 56(13):39–40 [PubMed: 7084902]
2.
Abernethy AP, Currow DC, Shelby-James T, Rowett D, May F, Samsa GP et al. Delivery strategies to optimize resource utilization and performance status for patients with advanced life-limiting illness: results from the “palliative care trial” [ISRCTN 81117481]. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2013; 45(3):488–505 [PubMed: 23102711]
3.
Abou ESG, Dowswell T, Mousa HA. Planned home versus hospital care for preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) prior to 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014; Issue 4:CD008053. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008053.pub3 [PubMed: 24729384] [CrossRef]
4.
Adib-Hajbaghery M, Maghaminejad F, Abbasi A. The role of continuous care in reducing readmission for patients with heart failure. Journal of Caring Sciences. 2013; 2(4):255–267 [PMC free article: PMC4134146] [PubMed: 25276734]
5.
Adler MW, Waller JJ, Creese A, Thorne SC. Randomised controlled trial of early discharge for inguinal hernia and varicose veins. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1978; 32(2):136–142 [PMC free article: PMC1060932] [PubMed: 98548]
6.
Aiken LS, Butner J, Lockhart CA, Volk-Craft BE, Hamilton G, Williams FG. Outcome evaluation of a randomized trial of the PhoenixCare intervention: program of case management and coordinated care for the seriously chronically ill. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2006; 9(1):111–126 [PubMed: 16430351]
7.
Aimonino Ricauda N, Tibaldi V, Leff B, Scarafiotti C, Marinello R, Zanocchi M et al. Substitutive “hospital at home” versus inpatient care for elderly patients with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2008; 56(3):493–500 [PubMed: 18179503]
8.
Aimonino N, Molaschi M, Salerno D, Roglia D, Rocco M, Fabris F. The home hospitalization of frail elderly patients with advanced dementia. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2001; 7:19–23 [PubMed: 11431041]
9.
Aimonino N, Salerno D, Roglia D, Molaschi M, Fabris F. The home hospitalization service of elderly patients with ischemic stroke: follow-up study. European Journal of Neurology. 2000; 7:(Suppl 3):111–112
10.
Alder IL, Augenstein LL, Rogerson TD. Gas-liquid chromatographic determination of sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate residues on soybeans and foliage, soil, milk, and liver. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1978; 61(6):1456–1458 [PubMed: 569657]
11.
Allen J. Surgical Internet at a glance: the Virtual Hospital. American Journal of Surgery. 1999; 178(1):1 [PubMed: 10456693]
12.
Anderson C, Ni MC, Rubenach S, Clark M, Spencer C, Winsor A. Early supportive discharge and rehabilitation trial in stroke (ESPRIT). Royal Australasian College of Physicians Annual Scientific Meeting. 2000;16
13.
Anderson C, Ni Mhurchu C, Brown PM, Carter K. Stroke rehabilitation services to accelerate hospital discharge and provide home-based care: an overview and cost analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002; 20(8):537–552 [PubMed: 12109919]
14.
Anderson DJ, Burrell AD, Bearne A. Cost associated with venous thromboembolism treatment in the community. Journal of Medical Economics. 2002; 5(1-10):1–10
15.
Andrei CL, Sinescu CJ, Ianula RM. Can be the home care of the heart failure patients a better economic alternative? European Journal of Heart Failure Supplements. 2011; 2011(11):S29
16.
Applegate WB, Miller ST, Graney MJ, Elam JT, Burns R, Akins DE. A randomized, controlled trial of a geriatric assessment unit in a community rehabilitation hospital. New England Journal of Medicine. 1990; 322(22):1572–1578 [PubMed: 2186276]
17.
Armstrong CD, Hogg WE, Lemelin J, Dahrouge S, Martin C, Viner GS et al. Home-based intermediate care program vs hospitalization: cost comparison study. Canadian Family Physician. 2008; 54(1):66–73 [PMC free article: PMC2293319] [PubMed: 18208958]
18.
Askim T, Morkved S, Indredavik B. Intensive motor training combined with early supported discharge after treatment in a comprehensive stroke unit. A randomised controlled trial. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2009; 27:(Suppl 6):42 [PubMed: 20558830]
19.
Aujesky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F, Righini M, Osterwalder J, Egloff M et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2011; 378(9785):41–48 [PubMed: 21703676]
20.
Avlund K, Jepsen E, Vass M, Lundemark H. Effects of comprehensive follow-up home visits after hospitalization on functional ability and readmissions among old patients. A randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2002; 9(1):17–22
21.
Bai M, Reynolds NR, McCorkle R. The promise of clinical interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma from the west to mainland China. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2013; 11(6):503–522 [PubMed: 23398641]
22.
Bajwah S, Ross JR, Wells AU, Mohammed K, Oyebode C, Birring SS et al. Palliative care for patients with advanced fibrotic lung disease: a randomised controlled phase II and feasibility trial of a community case conference intervention. Thorax. 2015; 70(9):830–839 [PubMed: 26103995]
23.
Bakerly ND, Davies C, Dyer M, Dhillon P. Cost analysis of an integrated care model in the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic Respiratory Disease. 2009; 6(4):201–208 [PubMed: 19729444]
24.
Bakken MS, Ranhoff AH, Engeland A, Ruths S. Inappropriate prescribing for older people admitted to an intermediate-care nursing home unit and hospital wards. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. 2012; 30(3):169–175 [PMC free article: PMC3443941] [PubMed: 22830533]
25.
Balaban RB, Weissman JS, Samuel PA, Woolhandler S. Redefining and redesigning hospital discharge to enhance patient care: a randomized controlled study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2008; 23(8):1228–1233 [PMC free article: PMC2517968] [PubMed: 18452048]
26.
Barnes MP. Community rehabilitation after stroke. Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2003; 15(3-4):223–234
27.
Beech R, Russell W, Little R, Sherlow-Jones S. An evaluation of a multidisciplinary team for intermediate care at home. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2004; 4:e02 [PMC free article: PMC1393274] [PubMed: 16773151]
28.
Bernhaut J, Mackay K. Extended nursing roles in intermediate care: a cost-benefit evaluation. Nursing Times. 2002; 98(21):37–39 [PubMed: 12168441]
29.
Bethell HJ, Mullee MA. A controlled trial of community based coronary rehabilitation. British Heart Journal. 1990; 64(6):370–375 [PMC free article: PMC1224812] [PubMed: 2271343]
30.
Beynon JH, Padiachy D. The past and future of geriatric day hospitals. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. 2009; 19(1):45–51
31.
Biese K, LaMantia M, Shofer F, McCall B, Roberts E, Stearns SC et al. A randomized trial exploring the effect of a telephone call follow-up on care plan compliance among older adults discharged home from the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2014; 21(2):188–195 [PubMed: 24673675]
32.
Blackburn GG, Foody JM, Sprecher DL, Park E, Apperson-Hansen C, Pashkow FJ. Cardiac rehabilitation participation patterns in a large, tertiary care center: evidence for selection bias. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation. 2000; 20(3):189–195 [PubMed: 10860201]
33.
Blair J, Corrigall H, Angus NJ, Thompson DR, Leslie S. Home versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review. Rural and Remote Health. 2011; 11(2):1532 [PubMed: 21488706]
34.
Board N, Brennan N, Caplan GA. A randomised controlled trial of the costs of hospital as compared with hospital in the home for acute medical patients. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2000; 24(3):305–311 [PubMed: 10937409]
35.
Booth JE, Roberts JA, Flather M, Lamping DL, Mister R, Abdalla M et al. A trial of early discharge with homecare compared to conventional hospital care for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Heart. 2004; 90(11):1344–1345 [PMC free article: PMC1768555] [PubMed: 15486143]
36.
Boston NK, Boynton PM, Hood S. An inner city GP unit versus conventional care for elderly patients: prospective comparison of health functioning, use of services and patient satisfaction. Family Practice. 2001; 18(2):141–148 [PubMed: 11264263]
37.
Boter H. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of an outreach nursing support program for recently discharged stroke patients. Stroke. a journal of cerebral circulation 2004; 35(12):2867–2872 [PubMed: 15514186]
38.
Bowler S, Schollay D, Nicholson C, Jackson C, Serisier D, and O’Rourke P. A pilot study comparing substitutable care at home with usual hospital care for acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Brisbane, Australia. Commonwealth department of health and aged care, 2001
39.
Bowman C, Black D. Intermediate not indeterminate care. Hospital Medicine. 1998; 59(11):877–879 [PubMed: 10197122]
40.
Brooks N. Intermediate care rapid assessment support service: an evaluation. British Journal of Community Nursing. 2002; 7(12):623–633 [PubMed: 12514491]
41.
Brooks N, Ashton A, Hainsworth B. Pilot evaluation of an intermediate care scheme. Nursing Standard. 2003; 17(23):33–35 [PubMed: 12655764]
42.
Brunner M, Skeat J, Morris ME. Outcomes of speech-language pathology following stroke: investigation of inpatient rehabilitation and rehabilitation in the home programs. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2008; 10(5):305–313 [PubMed: 20840030]
43.
Bryan K. Policies for reducing delayed discharge from hospital. British Medical Bulletin. 2010; 95(1):33–46 [PubMed: 20647227]
44.
Buus BJ, Refsgaard J, Kanstrup H, Paaske JS, Qvist I, Christensen B et al. Hospital-based versus community-based shared care cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome: protocol for a randomized clinical trial. Danish Medical Journal. 2013; 60(9):A4699 [PubMed: 24001464]
45.
Campbell H, Karnon J, Dowie R. Cost analysis of a hospital-at-home initiative using discrete event simulation. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2001; 6(1):14–22 [PubMed: 11219355]
46.
Caplan GA, Coconis J, Woods J. Effect of hospital in the home treatment on physical and cognitive function: a randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2005; 60(8):1035–1038 [PubMed: 16127109]
47.
Caplan GA, Ward JA, Brennan NJ, Coconis J, Board N, Brown A. Hospital in the home: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Journal of Australia. 1999; 170(4):156–160 [PubMed: 10078179]
48.
Caplan GA, Meller A, Squires B, Chan S, Willett W. Advance care planning and hospital in the nursing home. Age and Ageing. 2006; 35(6):581–585 [PubMed: 16807309]
49.
Caplan GA, Sulaiman NS, Mangin DA, Aimonino Ricauda N, Wilson AD, Barclay L. A meta-analysis of “hospital in the home”. Medical Journal of Australia. 2012; 197(9):512–519 [PubMed: 23121588]
50.
Caplan GA, Williams AJ, Daly B, Abraham K. A randomized, controlled trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and multidisciplinary intervention after discharge of elderly from the emergency department-the DEED II study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2004; 52(9):1417–1423 [PubMed: 15341540]
51.
Carroll C. Minding the Gap: what does intermediate care do? CME Journal Geriatric Medicine. 2005; 7(2):96–101
52.
Cassel JB, Kerr K, Pantilat S, Smith TJ. Palliative care consultation and hospital length of stay. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2010; 13(6):761–767 [PubMed: 20597710]
53.
Chan R, Webster J. A Cochrane review on the effects of end-of-life care pathways: do they improve patient outcomes? Australian Journal of Cancer Nursing. 2011; 12(2):26–30
54.
Chan RJ, Webster J. End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013; Issue 11:CD008006. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008006.pub3 [PubMed: 24249255] [CrossRef]
55.
Chappell H, Dickey C. Decreased rehospitalization costs through intermittent nursing visits to nursing home patients. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1993; 23(3):49–52 [PubMed: 8473929]
56.
Chard SE. Community neurorehabilitation: a synthesis of current evidence and future research directions. NeuroRx. 2006; 3(4):525–534 [PMC free article: PMC3593402] [PubMed: 17012066]
57.
Chen A, Bushmeneva K, Zagorski B, Colantonio A, Parsons D, Wodchis WP. Direct cost associated with acquired brain injury in Ontario. BMC Neurology. 2012; 12:76 [PMC free article: PMC3518141] [PubMed: 22901094]
58.
Chumbler NR, Li X, Quigley P, Morey MC, Rose D, Griffiths P et al. A randomized controlled trial on stroke telerehabilitation: the effects on falls self-efficacy and satisfaction with care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2015; 21(3):139–143 [PMC free article: PMC4548802] [PubMed: 25680390]
59.
Coast J, Richards SH, Peters TJ, Gunnell DJ, Darlow MA, Pounsford J. Hospital at home or acute hospital care? A cost minimisation analysis. BMJ. 1998; 316(7147):1802–1806 [PMC free article: PMC28581] [PubMed: 9624074]
60.
Cobelli F, Tavazzi L. Relative role of ambulatory and residential rehabilitation. Journal of Cardiovascular Risk. 1996; 3(2):172–175 [PubMed: 8836859]
61.
Coburn AF, Fortinsky RH, McGuire CA. The impact of Medicaid reimbursement policy on subacute care in hospitals. Medical Care. 1989; 27(1):25–33 [PubMed: 2492065]
62.
Cohen IL, Booth FV. Cost containment and mechanical ventilation in the United States. New Horizons. 1994; 2(3):283–290 [PubMed: 8087585]
63.
Colprim D, Inzitari M. Incidence and risk factors for unplanned transfers to acute general hospitals from an intermediate care and rehabilitation geriatric facility. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2014; 15(9):687–4 [PubMed: 25086689]
64.
Colprim D, Martin R, Parer M, Prieto J, Espinosa L, Inzitari M. Direct admission to intermediate care for older adults with reactivated chronic diseases as an alternative to conventional hospitalization. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2013; 14(4):300–302 [PubMed: 23294969]
65.
Conley J, O’Brien CW, Leff BA, Bolen S, Zulman D. Alternative strategies to inpatient hospitalization for acute medical conditions: a systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2016; 176(11):1693–1702 [PubMed: 27695822]
66.
Corwin P, Toop L, McGeoch G, Than M, Wynn-Thomas S, Wells JE et al. Randomised controlled trial of intravenous antibiotic treatment for cellulitis at home compared with hospital. BMJ. 2005; 330(7483):129 [PMC free article: PMC544431] [PubMed: 15604157]
67.
Cotton MM, Bucknall CE, Dagg KD, Johnson MK, MacGregor G, Stewart C et al. Early discharge for patients with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial. Thorax. 2000; 55(11):902–906 [PMC free article: PMC1745631] [PubMed: 11050257]
68.
Courtney M, Edwards H, Chang A, Parker A, Finlayson K, Hamilton K. Fewer emergency readmissions and better quality of life for older adults at risk of hospital readmission: a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a 24-week exercise and telephone follow-up program. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2009; 57(3):395–402 [PubMed: 19245413]
69.
Cowie A, Moseley O. Home- versus hospital-based exercise training in heart failure: an economic analysis. British Journal of Cardiology. 2014; 21(2):76
70.
Craig LE, Wu O, Bernhardt J, Langhorne P. Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke rehabilitation. International Journal of Stroke. 2014; 9(1):88–100 [PubMed: 23521855]
71.
Crawford-Faucher A. Home- and center-based cardiac rehabilitation equally effective. American Family Physician. 2010; 82(8):994–995
72.
Crotty M, Kittel A, Hayball N. Home rehabilitation for older adults with fractured hips: how many will take part? Journal of Quality in Clinical Practice. 2000; 20(2-3):65–68 [PubMed: 11057986]
73.
Crotty M, Miller M, Whitehead C, Krishnan J, Hearn T. Hip fracture treatments-what happens to patients from residential care? Journal of Quality in Clinical Practice. 2000; 20(4):167–170 [PubMed: 11207957]
74.
Crotty M, Whitehead C, Miller M, Gray S. Patient and caregiver outcomes 12 months after home-based therapy for hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2003; 84(8):1237–1239 [PubMed: 12917867]
75.
Crotty M, Whitehead CH, Gray S, Finucane PM. Early discharge and home rehabilitation after hip fracture achieves functional improvements: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2002; 16(4):406–413 [PubMed: 12061475]
76.
Cunliffe A, Husbands S, Gladman J. Satisfaction with an early supported discharge service for older people. Age and Ageing. 2002; 31:(Suppl 2):43
77.
Dalal HM, Evans PH. Achieving national service framework standards for cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention. BMJ. 2003; 326(7387):481–484 [PMC free article: PMC150183] [PubMed: 12609946]
78.
Daly BJ, Douglas SL, Gunzler D, Lipson AR. Clinical trial of a supportive care team for patients with advanced cancer. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2013; 46(6):775–784 [PMC free article: PMC3715594] [PubMed: 23523362]
79.
Davies L, Wilkinson M, Bonner S, Calverley PM, Angus RM. “Hospital at home” versus hospital care in patients with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prospective randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000; 321(7271):1265–1268 [PMC free article: PMC27532] [PubMed: 11082090]
80.
Department of Health. Intermediate care - halfway home. Updated guidance for the NHS and Local Authorities, 2009. Available from: http://webarchive​.nationalarchives​.gov.uk/20130107105354/ http:/www​.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh​/groups​/dh_digitalassets/@dh​/@en/@pg/documents​/digitalasset/dh_103154.pdf
81.
Deutsch A, Granger CV, Heinemann AW, Fiedler RC, DeJong G, Kane RL et al. Poststroke rehabilitation: outcomes and reimbursement of inpatient rehabilitation facilities and subacute rehabilitation programs. Stroke. 2006; 37(6):1477–1482 [PubMed: 16627797]
82.
Dey P, Woodman M, and FASTER trial group. Manchester FASTER trial [unpublished], 2003
83.
Dhalla IA, O’Brien T, Morra D, Thorpe KE, Wong BM, Mehta R et al. Effect of a postdischarge virtual ward on readmission or death for high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014; 312(13):1305–1312 [PubMed: 25268437]
84.
Dias FD, Sampaio LMM, da Silva GA, Gomes ELFD, do Nascimento ESP, Alves VLS et al. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 2013; 8:537–544 [PMC free article: PMC3821544] [PubMed: 24235824]
85.
Dickson HG, Conforti DA. Hospital in the home: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Journal of Australia. 1999; 171(2):109–110 [PubMed: 10474595]
86.
DiMartino LD, Weiner BJ, Mayer DK, Jackson GL, Biddle AK. Do palliative care interventions reduce emergency department visits among patients with cancer at the end of life? A systematic review. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2014; 17(12):1384–1399 [PubMed: 25115197]
87.
Dolansky MA, Xu F, Zullo M, Shishehbor M, Moore SM, Rimm AA. Post-acute care services received by older adults following a cardiac event: a population-based analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2010; 25(4):342–349 [PMC free article: PMC2885047] [PubMed: 20539168]
88.
Dombi WA. Avalere health study conclusively proves home care is cost effective, saves billions for Medicare yearly, and effectively limits re-hospitalization. Caring. 2009; 28(6):22–23 [PubMed: 19626962]
89.
Donald IP, Baldwin RN, Bannerjee M. Gloucester hospital-at-home: a randomized controlled trial. Age and Ageing. 1995; 24(5):434–439 [PubMed: 8669350]
90.
Donaldson RJ. Hospital versus domiciliary care in acute myocardial infarction. Health and Hygiene. 1982; 4(2-4):103–107
91.
Donath S. Hospital in the home: real cost reductions or merely cost-shifting? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2001; 25(2):187–188 [PubMed: 11357920]
92.
Donlevy JA, Pietruch BL. The connection delivery model: care across the continuum. Nursing Management. 1996; 27(5):34–36 [PubMed: 8710342]
93.
Donnelly ML, Jamieson JL, Brett-Maclean P. Primary care geriatrics in British Columbia: a short report. Geriatrics Today: Journal of the Canadian Geriatrics Society. 2002; 5(4):175–178
94.
Dorney-Smith S. Nurse-led homeless intermediate care: an economic evaluation. British Journal of Nursing. 2011; 20(18):1193–1197 [PubMed: 22067642]
95.
Dow B. The shifting cost of care: early discharge for rehabilitation. Australian Health Review. 2004; 28(3):260–265 [PubMed: 15595907]
96.
Dow B, Black K, Bremner F, Fearn M. A comparison of a hospital-based and two home-based rehabilitation programmes. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2007; 29(8):635–641 [PubMed: 17453984]
97.
Duffy JR, Hoskins LM, Dudley-Brown S. Improving outcomes for older adults with heart failure: a randomized trial using a theory-guided nursing intervention. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2010; 25(1):56–64 [PubMed: 19512945]
98.
Dyar S, Lesperance M, Shannon R, Sloan J, Colon-Otero G. A nurse practitioner directed intervention improves the quality of life of patients with metastatic cancer: results of a randomized pilot study. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2012; 15(8):890–895 [PMC free article: PMC3396133] [PubMed: 22559906]
99.
Echevarria C, Brewin K, Horobin H, Bryant A, Corbett S, Steer J et al. Early supported discharge/hospital at home for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review and meta-analysis. COPD. 2016; 13(4):523–533 [PubMed: 26854816]
100.
Eldar R. Rehabilitation in the community for patients with stroke: a review. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2000; 6(4):48–59
101.
Elder AT. Can we manage more acutely ill elderly patients in the community? Age and Ageing. 2001; 30(6):441–443 [PubMed: 11742768]
102.
Elliott RA, Thornton J, Webb AK, Dodd M, Tully MP. Comparing costs of home- versus hospital-based treatment of infections in adults in a specialist cystic fibrosis center. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2005; 21(4):506–510 [PubMed: 16262975]
103.
Emme C, Mortensen EL, Rydahl-Hansen S, Ostergaard B, Svarre Jakobsen A, Schou L et al. The impact of virtual admission on self-efficacy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - a randomised clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2014; 23(21-22):3124–3137 [PubMed: 24476457]
104.
Emme C, Rydahl-Hansen S, Ostergaard B, Schou L, Svarre Jakobsen A, Phanareth K. How virtual admission affects coping - telemedicine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2014; 23(9-10):1445–1458 [PubMed: 24372676]
105.
Eron LJ, Marineau M, Baclig E, Yonehara C, King P. The virtual hospital: treating acute infections in the home by telemedicine. Hawaii Medical Journal. 2004; 63(10):291–293 [PubMed: 15570714]
106.
Feltner C, Jones CD, Cene CW, Zheng ZJ, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJL et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014; 160(11):774–784 [PubMed: 24862840]
107.
Fenton FR, Tessier L, Struening EL, Smith FA, Benoit C, Contandriopoulos AP et al. A two-year follow-up of a comparative trial of the cost-effectiveness of home and hospital psychiatric treatment. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 1984; 29(3):205–211 [PubMed: 6442211]
108.
Franklin BA. Multifactorial cardiac rehabilitation did not reduce mortality or morbidity after acute myocardial infarction. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012; 157(2):JC2–11 [PubMed: 22801702]
109.
Garåsen H, Windspoll R, Johnsen R. Long-term patients’ outcomes after intermediate care at a community hospital for elderly patients: 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2008; 36(2):197–204 [PubMed: 18519285]
110.
Garasen H, Windspoll R, Johnsen R. Intermediate care at a community hospital as an alternative to prolonged general hospital care for elderly patients: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2007; 7:68 [PMC free article: PMC1868721] [PubMed: 17475006]
111.
Gaspoz JM, Lee TH, Weinstein MC, Cook EF, Goldman P, Komaroff AL et al. Cost-effectiveness of a new short-stay unit to “rule out” acute myocardial infarction in low risk patients. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1994; 24(5):1249–1259 [PubMed: 7930247]
112.
Ghanem M, Elaal EA, Mehany M, Tolba K. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation program: effect on exercise tolerance and quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Annals of Thoracic Medicine. 2010; 5(1):18–25 [PMC free article: PMC2841804] [PubMed: 20351956]
113.
Gjelsvik BEB, Hofstad H, Smedal T, Eide GE, Naess H, Skouen JS et al. Balance and walking after three different models of stroke rehabilitation: early supported discharge in a day unit or at home, and traditional treatment (control). BMJ Open. 2014; 4(5):e004358 [PMC free article: PMC4025466] [PubMed: 24833680]
114.
Gladman JR, Lincoln NB. Follow-up of a controlled trial of domiciliary stroke rehabilitation (DOMINO Study). Age and Ageing. 1994; 23(1):9–13 [PubMed: 8010180]
115.
Glasby J, Martin G, Regen E. Older people and the relationship between hospital services and intermediate care: results from a national evaluation. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2008; 22(6):639–649 [PubMed: 19012144]
116.
Glick HA, Polsky D, Willke RJ, Alves WM, Kassell N, Schulman K. Comparison of the use of medical resources and outcomes in the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage between Canada and the United States. Stroke. 1998; 29(2):351–358 [PubMed: 9472873]
117.
Gobbi M, Monger E, Watkinson G, Spencer A, Weaver M, Lathlean J et al. Virtual Interactive Practice: a strategy to enhance learning and competence in health care students. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2004; 107(Pt 2):874–878 [PubMed: 15360937]
118.
Goossens LMA, Utens CMA, Smeenk FWJM, van Schayck OCP, van Vliet M, van Litsenburg W et al. Cost-effectiveness of early assisted discharge for COPD exacerbations in The Netherlands. Value in Health. 2013; 16(4):517–528 [PubMed: 23796285]
119.
Gracey DR, Viggiano RW, Naessens JM, Hubmayr RD, Silverstein MD, Koenig GE. Outcomes of patients admitted to a chronic ventilator-dependent unit in an acute-care hospital. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1992; 67(2):131–136 [PubMed: 1545576]
120.
Graham LA. Organization of rehabilitation services. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. 2013; 110:113–120 [PubMed: 23312635]
121.
Grande GE, Farquhar MC, Barclay SI, Todd CJ. Caregiver bereavement outcome: relationship with hospice at home, satisfaction with care, and home death. Journal of Palliative Care. 2004; 20(2):69–77 [PubMed: 15332470]
122.
Graverholt B, Forsetlund L, Jamtvedt G. Reducing hospital admissions from nursing homes: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2014; 14:36 [PMC free article: PMC3906881] [PubMed: 24456561]
123.
Greer JA, Pirl WF, Jackson VA, Muzikansky A, Lennes IT, Heist RS et al. Effect of early palliative care on chemotherapy use and end-of-life care in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012; 30(4):394–400 [PubMed: 22203758]
124.
Gregory P, Edwards L, Faurot K, Williams SW, Felix ACG. Patient preferences for stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2010; 17(5):394–400 [PubMed: 21131265]
125.
Gregory PC, Han E. Disparities in postacute stroke rehabilitation disposition to acute inpatient rehabilitation vs. home: findings from the North Carolina Hospital Discharge Database. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2009; 88(2):100–107 [PubMed: 19169175]
126.
Griffiths P. Intermediate care in nursing-led units - a comprehensive overview of the evidence base. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. 2006; 16(1):71–77
127.
Griffiths P, Harris R, Richardson G, Hallett N, Heard S, Wilson-Barnett J. Substitution of a nursing-led inpatient unit for acute services: randomized controlled trial of outcomes and cost of nursing-led intermediate care. Age and Ageing. 2001; 30(6):483–488 [PubMed: 11742777]
128.
Griffiths P, Wilson-Barnett J. Influences on length of stay in intermediate care: lessons from the nursing-led inpatient unit studies. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2000; 37(3):245–255 [PubMed: 10754190]
129.
Griffiths P, Wilson-Barnett J, Richardson G, Spilsbury K, Miller F, Harris R. The effectiveness of intermediate care in a nursing-led in-patient unit. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2000; 37(2):153–161 [PubMed: 10684957]
130.
Griffiths P. Effectiveness of intermediate care delivered in nurse-led units. British Journal of Community Nursing. 2006; 11(5):205–208 [PubMed: 16723914]
131.
Griffiths P, Edwards M, Forbes A, Harris R. Post-acute intermediate care in nursing-led units: a systematic review of effectiveness. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2005; 42(1):107–116 [PubMed: 15582644]
132.
Gunnell D, Coast J, Richards SH, Peters TJ, Pounsford JC, Darlow MA. How great a burden does early discharge to hospital-at-home impose on carers? A randomized controlled trial. Age and Ageing. 2000; 29(2):137–142 [PubMed: 10791448]
133.
Hackett ML, Vandal AC, Anderson CS, Rubenach SE. Long-term outcome in stroke patients and caregivers following accelerated hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation. Stroke. a journal of cerebral circulation 2002; 33(2):643–645 [PubMed: 11823686]
134.
Hamlet KS, Hobgood A, Hamar GB, Dobbs AC, Rula EY, Pope JE. Impact of predictive model-directed end-of-life counseling for Medicare beneficiaries. American Journal of Managed Care. 2010; 16(5):379–384 [PubMed: 20469958]
135.
Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Ryan TJ, Isom OW, Bennett E et al. Predictors of readmission for complications of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003; 290(6):773–780 [PubMed: 12915430]
136.
Hansen FR, Spedtsberg K, Schroll M. Geriatric follow-up by home visits after discharge from hospital: a randomized controlled trial. Age and Ageing. 1992; 21(6):445–450 [PubMed: 1471584]
137.
Hardy C, Whitwell D, Sarsfield B, Maimaris C. Admission avoidance and early discharge of acute hospital admissions: an accident and emergency based scheme. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2001; 18(6):435–440 [PMC free article: PMC1725709] [PubMed: 11696489]
138.
Harris R, Ashton T, Broad J, Connolly G, Richmond D. The effectiveness, acceptability and costs of a hospital-at-home service compared with acute hospital care: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10(3):158–166 [PubMed: 16053592]
139.
Hauser B, Robinson J, Powers JS, Laubacher MA. The evaluation of an intermediate care--geriatric evaluation unit in a Veterans Administration Hospital. Southern Medical Journal. 1991; 84(5):597–602 [PubMed: 2035080]
140.
Herfjord JK, Heggestad T, Ersland H, Ranhoff AH. Intermediate care in nursing home after hospital admission: a randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up. BMC Research Notes. 2014; 7:889 [PMC free article: PMC4295396] [PubMed: 25487353]
141.
Hernandez C, Casas A, Escarrabill J, Alonso J, Puig-Junoy J, Farrero E et al. Home hospitalisation of exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. European Respiratory Journal. 2003; 21(1):58–67 [PubMed: 12570110]
142.
Hernandez C, Alonso A, Garcia-Aymerich J, Grimsmo A, Vontetsianos T, Garcia Cuyas F et al. Integrated care services: lessons learned from the deployment of the NEXES project. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2015; 15:e006 [PMC free article: PMC4447233] [PubMed: 26034465]
143.
Herr K, Titler M, Fine PG, Sanders S, Cavanaugh JE, Swegle J et al. The effect of a translating research into practice (TRIP)--cancer intervention on cancer pain management in older adults in hospice. Pain Medicine. 2012; 13(8):1004–1017 [PMC free article: PMC3422373] [PubMed: 22758921]
144.
Heseltine D. Community outreach rehabilitation. Age and Ageing. 2001; 30:(Suppl 3):40–42 [PubMed: 11511487]
145.
Hill AM, Etherton-Beer C, Haines TP. Tailored education for older patients to facilitate engagement in falls prevention strategies after hospital discharge--a pilot randomized controlled trial. PloS One. 2013; 8(5):e63450 [PMC free article: PMC3662677] [PubMed: 23717424]
146.
Hill JD, Hampton JR, Mitchell JR. A randomised trial of home-versus-hospital management for patients with suspected myocardial infarction. The Lancet. 1978; 1(8069):837–841 [PubMed: 76794]
147.
Hofstad H, Gjelsvik BEB, Naess H, Eide GE, Skouen JS. Early supported discharge after stroke in Bergen (ESD Stroke Bergen): three and six months results of a randomised controlled trial comparing two early supported discharge schemes with treatment as usual. BMC Neurology. 2014; 14(1):239 [PMC free article: PMC4301654] [PubMed: 25528166]
148.
Hudson P, Trauer T, Kelly B, O’Connor M, Thomas K, Summers M et al. Reducing the psychological distress of family caregivers of home-based palliative care patients: short-term effects from a randomised controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology. 2013; 22(9):1987–1993 [PubMed: 23335153]
149.
Hudson P, Trauer T, Kelly B, O’Connor M, Thomas K, Zordan R et al. Reducing the psychological distress of family caregivers of home based palliative care patients: longer term effects from a randomised controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology. 2015; 24:19–24 [PMC free article: PMC4309500] [PubMed: 25044819]
150.
Hughes SL, Cummings J, Weaver F, Manheim LM, Conrad KJ, Nash K. A randomized trial of Veterans Administration home care for severely disabled veterans. Medical Care. 1990; 28(2):135–145 [PubMed: 2153881]
151.
Hunger M, Kirchberger I, Holle R, Seidl H, Kuch B, Wende R et al. Does nurse-based case management for aged myocardial infarction patients improve risk factors, physical functioning and mental health? The KORINNA trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2015; 22(4):442–450 [PubMed: 24523431]
152.
Huo J, Lairson DR, Du XL, Chan W, Buchholz TA, Guadagnolo BA. Survival and cost-effectiveness of hospice care for metastatic melanoma patients. American Journal of Managed Care. 2014; 20(5):366–373 [PubMed: 25181566]
153.
Hwang SJ, Chang HT, Hwang IH, Wu CY, Yang WH, Li CP. Hospice offers more palliative care but costs less than usual care for terminal geriatric hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a nationwide study. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2013; 16(7):780–785 [PubMed: 23790184]
154.
Ince AT, Senturk H, Singh VK, Yildiz K, Danalioglu A, Cinar A et al. A randomized controlled trial of home monitoring versus hospitalization for mild non-alcoholic acute interstitial pancreatitis: a pilot study. Pancreatology. 2014; 14(3):174–178 [PubMed: 24854612]
155.
Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl SA, Rokseth R, Haheim LL. Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important? Stroke. 1999; 30(5):917–923 [PubMed: 10229720]
156.
Indredavik B, Rohweder G, Naalsund E, Lydersen S. Medical complications in a comprehensive stroke unit and an early supported discharge service. Stroke. 2008; 39(2):414–420 [PubMed: 18096834]
157.
Jackson JC, Ely EW, Morey MC, Anderson VM, Denne LB, Clune J et al. Cognitive and physical rehabilitation of intensive care unit survivors: results of the RETURN randomized controlled pilot investigation. Critical Care Medicine. 2012; 40(4):1088–1097 [PMC free article: PMC3755871] [PubMed: 22080631]
158.
Jakobsen AS, Laursen LC, Ostergaard B, Rydahl-Hansen S, Phanareth KV. Hospital-admitted COPD patients treated at home using telemedicine technology in The Virtual Hospital Trial: methods of a randomized effectiveness trial. Trials. 2013; 14:280 [PMC free article: PMC3766220] [PubMed: 24139548]
159.
Jakobsen AS, Laursen LC, Rydahl-Hansen S, Ostergaard B, Gerds TA, Emme C et al. Home-based telehealth hospitalization for exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: findings from “the virtual hospital” trial. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health. 2015; 21(5):364–373 [PMC free article: PMC4432494] [PubMed: 25654366]
160.
Jeppesen E, Brurberg KG, Vist GE, Wedzicha JA, Wright JJ, Greenstone M et al. Hospital at home for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012; Issue 5:CD003573. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003573.pub2 [PubMed: 22592692] [CrossRef]
161.
Jolly K, Lip GY, Taylor RS, Mant JW, Lane DA, Lee KW et al. Recruitment of ethnic minority patients to a cardiac rehabilitation trial: the Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation (BRUM) study [ISRCTN72884263]. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2005; 5:18 [PMC free article: PMC1166559] [PubMed: 15904499]
162.
Jones J, Wilson A, Parker H, Wynn A, Jagger C, Spiers N et al. Economic evaluation of hospital at home versus hospital care: cost minimisation analysis of data from randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1999; 319(7224):1547–1550 [PMC free article: PMC28300] [PubMed: 10591720]
163.
Jones J, Carroll A. Hospital admission avoidance through the introduction of a virtual ward. British Journal of Community Nursing. 2014; 19(7):330–334 [PubMed: 25039341]
164.
Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Knapp M, Donaldson N, Swift CG. Alternative strategies for stroke care: a prospective randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2000; 356(9233):894–899 [PubMed: 11036894]
165.
Kameshwar K, Karahalios A, Janus E, Karunajeewa H. False economies in home-based parenteral antibiotic treatment: a health-economic case study of management of lower-limb cellulitis in Australia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2016; 71(3):830–835 [PubMed: 26702920]
166.
Kenny RA, O’Shea D, Walker HF. Impact of a dedicated syncope and falls facility for older adults on emergency beds. Age and Ageing. 2002; 31(4):272–275 [PubMed: 12147565]
167.
Kinley J, Hockley J, Stone L, Dewey M, Hansford P, Stewart R et al. The provision of care for residents dying in U.K. nursing care homes. Age and Ageing. 2014; 43:375–379 [PubMed: 24132855]
168.
Konrad D, Corrigan ML, Hamilton C, Steiger E, Kirby DF. Identification and early treatment of dehydration in home parenteral nutrition and home intravenous fluid patients prevents hospital admissions. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2012; 27(6):802–807 [PubMed: 23069992]
169.
Koopman MM, Prandoni P, Piovella F, Ockelford PA, Brandjes DP, van der Meer J et al. Treatment of venous thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital as compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin administered at home. The Tasman Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996; 334(11):682–687 [PubMed: 8594426]
170.
Kornowski R, Zeeli D, Averbuch M, Finkelstein A, Schwartz D, Moshkovitz M et al. Intensive home-care surveillance prevents hospitalization and improves morbidity rates among elderly patients with severe congestive heart failure. American Heart Journal. 1995; 129(4):762–766 [PubMed: 7900629]
171.
Kortke H, Stromeyer H, Zittermann A, Buhr N, Zimmermann E, Wienecke E et al. New East-Westfalian postoperative therapy concept: a telemedicine guide for the study of ambulatory rehabilitation of patients after cardiac surgery. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health. 2006; 12(4):475–483 [PubMed: 16942420]
172.
Korzeniowska-Kubacka I, Bilinska M, Dobraszkiewicz-Wasilewska B, Piotrowicz R. Comparison between hybrid and standard centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in female patients after myocardial infarction: a pilot study. Kardiologia Polska. 2014; 72(3):269–274 [PubMed: 24142752]
173.
Kwok T, Lee J, Woo J, Lee DT, Griffith S. A randomized controlled trial of a community nurse-supported hospital discharge programme in older patients with chronic heart failure. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2008; 17(1):109–117 [PubMed: 18088263]
174.
Langhorne P, Dennis MS, Kalra L, Shepperd S, Wade DT, Wolfe CD. Services for helping acute stroke patients avoid hospital admission. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000; Issue 2:CD000444. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000444 [PubMed: 10796366] [CrossRef]
175.
Langhorne P, Taylor G, Murray G, Dennis M, Anderson C, Bautz-Holter E et al. Early supported discharge services for stroke patients: a meta-analysis of individual patients’ data. The Lancet. 2005; 365(9458):501–506 [PubMed: 15705460]
176.
Lappegard O, Hjortdahl P. Acute admissions to a community hospital: experiences from Hallingdal sjukestugu. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2012; 40(4):309–315 [PubMed: 22786914]
177.
Last S. Intermediate care. Bed spread. Health Service Journal. 2000; 110(5717):22–23 [PubMed: 11183713]
178.
Latour CHM, de Vos R, Huyse FJ, de Jonge P, van Gemert LAM, Stalman WAB. Effectiveness of post-discharge case management in general-medical outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2006; 47(5):421–429 [PubMed: 16959931]
179.
Leon A, Caceres C, Fernandez E, Chausa P, Martin M, Codina C et al. A new multidisciplinary home care telemedicine system to monitor stable chronic human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: a randomized study. PloS One. 2011; 6(1):e14515 [PMC free article: PMC3024968] [PubMed: 21283736]
180.
Leppert W, Majkowicz M, Forycka M, Mess E, Zdun-Ryzewska A. Quality of life assessment in advanced cancer patients treated at home, an inpatient unit, and a day care center. OncoTargets and Therapy. 2014; 7:687–695 [PMC free article: PMC4020899] [PubMed: 24855379]
181.
Leung DYP, Lee DT-F, Lee IFK, Lam LW, Lee SWY, Chan MWM et al. The effect of a virtual ward program on emergency services utilization and quality of life in frail elderly patients after discharge: a pilot study. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2015; 10:413–420 [PMC free article: PMC4322950] [PubMed: 25678782]
182.
Lewis G. Virtual wards, real nursing. Nursing Standard. 2007; 21(43):64 [PubMed: 17695588]
183.
Lewis G, Bardsley M, Vaithianathan R, Steventon A, Georghiou T, Billings J et al. Do ‘virtual wards’ reduce rates of unplanned hospital admissions, and at what cost? A research protocol using propensity matched controls. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2011; 11:e079 [PMC free article: PMC3178802] [PubMed: 21949489]
184.
Lewis G, Vaithianathan R, Wright L, Brice MR, Lovell P, Rankin S et al. Integrating care for high-risk patients in England using the virtual ward model: lessons in the process of care integration from three case sites. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2013; 13:e046 [PMC free article: PMC3821539] [PubMed: 24250284]
185.
Lewis G, Wright L, Vaithianathan R. Multidisciplinary case management for patients at high risk of hospitalization: comparison of virtual ward models in the United kingdom, United States, and Canada. Population Health Management. 2012; 15(5):315–321 [PubMed: 22788975]
186.
Lewis GH, Georghiou T, and Steventon A. Impact of “Virtual Wards” on hospital use: a research study using propensity matched controls and a cost analysis. Southampton. National Institute for Health Research, 2013. Available from: http://www​.nets.nihr​.ac.uk/__data/assets​/pdf_file/0011/87923/FR-09-1816-1021.pdf
187.
Lim WK, Lambert SF, Gray LC. Effectiveness of case management and post-acute services in older people after hospital discharge. Medical Journal of Australia. Australia 2003; 178(6):262–266 [PubMed: 12633482]
188.
Linertova R, Garcia-Perez L, Vazquez-Diaz JR, Lorenzo-Riera A, Sarria-Santamera A. Interventions to reduce hospital readmissions in the elderly: in-hospital or home care. A systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2011; 17(6):1167–1175 [PubMed: 20630005]
189.
Liu XL, Tan JY, Wang T, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Yao LQ et al. Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Rehabilitation Nursing. 2014; 39(1):36–59 [PubMed: 23780865]
190.
Martin F, Oyewole A, Moloney A. A randomized controlled trial of a high support hospital discharge team for elderly people. Age and Ageing. 1994; 23(3):228–234 [PubMed: 8085509]
191.
Mason S, Wardrope J, Perrin J. Developing a community paramedic practitioner intermediate care support scheme for older people with minor conditions. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2003; 20(2):196–198 [PMC free article: PMC1726072] [PubMed: 12642544]
192.
Mather HG, Morgan DC, Pearson NG, Read KL, Shaw DB, Steed GR et al. Myocardial infarction: a comparison between home and hospital care for patients. BMJ. 1976; 1(6015):925–929 [PMC free article: PMC1639298] [PubMed: 1268490]
193.
Matukaitis J, Stillman P, Wykpisz E, Ewen E. Appropriate admissions to the appropriate unit: a decision tree approach. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2005; 20(2):90–97 [PubMed: 15851387]
194.
Mayhew L, Lawrence D. The costs and service implications of substituting intermediate care for acute hospital care. Health Services Management Research. 2006; 19(2):80–93 [PubMed: 16643707]
195.
Mayo N, Wood-Dauphinee S, Tamblyn R, Cote R, Gayton D, Carlton J et al. There’s no place like home: a trial of early discharge and intensive home rehabilitation post stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 1998; 8:(Suppl 4):94
196.
Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R, Gayton D, Carlton J, Buttery J et al. There’s no place like home: an evaluation of early supported discharge for stroke. Stroke. 2000; 31(5):1016–1023 [PubMed: 10797160]
197.
McKegney FP, Bailey LR, Yates JW. Prediction and management of pain in patients with advanced cancer. General Hospital Psychiatry. 1981; 3(2):95–101 [PubMed: 6166512]
198.
McNamee P, Christensen J, Soutter J, Rodgers H, Craig N, Pearson P et al. Cost analysis of early supported hospital discharge for stroke. Age and Ageing. 1998; 27(3):345–351
199.
McWhinney IR, Bass MJ, Donner A. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. BMJ. 1994; 309(6965):1340–1342 [PMC free article: PMC2541867] [PubMed: 7532501]
200.
Melin AL, Bygren LO. Efficacy of the rehabilitation of elderly primary health care patients after short-stay hospital treatment. Medical Care. 1992; 30(11):1004–1015 [PubMed: 1331632]
201.
Melin AL, Hakansson S, Bygren LO. The cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation in the home: a study of Swedish elderly. American Journal of Public Health. 1993; 83(3):356–362 [PMC free article: PMC1694665] [PubMed: 8438972]
202.
Mendoza H, Martin MJ, Garcia A, Aros F, Aizpuru F, Regalado De Los Cobos J et al. ‘Hospital at home’ care model as an effective alternative in the management of decompensated chronic heart failure. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2009; 11(12):1208–1213 [PubMed: 19875400]
203.
Meyer RP. Consider medical care at home. Geriatrics. 2009; 64(6):9–11 [PubMed: 19572761]
204.
Monitor. Moving healthcare closer to home: financial impacts, 2015. Available from: https://www​.gov.uk/guidance​/moving-healthcare-closer-to-home
205.
Muijen M, Marks I, Connolly J, Audini B. Home based care and standard hospital care for patients with severe mental illness: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1992; 304(6829):749–754 [PMC free article: PMC1881624] [PubMed: 1571681]
206.
Murphy N, Bell C, Costello RW. Extending a home from hospital care programme for COPD exacerbations to include pulmonary rehabilitation. Respiratory Medicine. 2005; 99(10):1297–1302 [PubMed: 16140230]
207.
Mussi CM, Ruschel K, de Souza EN, Lopes AN, Trojahn MM, Paraboni CC et al. Home visit improves knowledge, self-care and adhesion in heart failure: randomized clinical trial HELEN-I. Revista Latino-Americana De Enfermagem. 2013; 21:20–28 [PubMed: 23459887]
208.
National Collaborating Centre for Social Care. Home care: delivering personal care and practical support to older people living in their own homes. NICE guideline 21. London. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2015. Available from: https://www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng21
209.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Older people with social care needs and multiple long-term conditions, 2015. Available from: https://www​.nice.org​.uk/guidance/ng22/resources​/older-people-with-social-care-needs-and-multiple-longterm-conditions-1837328537797
210.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care home settings for adults with social care needs, 2015. Available from: https://www​.nice.org​.uk/guidance/ng27/resources​/transition-between-inpatient-hospital-settings-and-community-or-care-home-settings-for-adults-with-social-care-needs-1837336935877
211.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Managing medicines for adults receiving social care in the community. nice guideline 67. London: 2016. Available from: https://www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng67
212.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Transition between inpatient mental health settings and community or care home settings, 2016. Available from: https://www​.nice.org​.uk/guidance/ng53/resources​/transition-between-inpatient-mental-health-settings-and-community-or-care-home-settings-1837511615941
213.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intermediate care including reablement. nice guideline 74. London: 2017. Available from: https://www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng74
214.
NHS Benchmarking Network. National Audit of Intermediate Care summary report, 2015. Available from: http://www​.nhsbenchmarking​.nhs.uk/CubeCore/​.uploads/NAIC/Reports​/NAICReport2015FINAL-A4printableversion.pdf
215.
Nicholson C, Bowler S, Jackson C, Schollay D, Tweeddale M, O’Rourke P. Cost comparison of hospital- and home-based treatment models for acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Australian Health Review. 2001; 24(4):181–187 [PubMed: 11842709]
216.
Nikolaus T, Specht-Leible N, Bach M, Oster P, Schlierf G. A randomized trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and home intervention in the care of hospitalized patients. Age and Ageing. 1999; 28(6):543–550 [PubMed: 10604506]
217.
Nissen I, Jensen MS. Nurse-supported discharge of patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ugeskrift for Laeger. 2007; 169(23):2220–2223 [PubMed: 17592691]
218.
Nordly M, Benthien KS, Von Der Maase H, Johansen C, Kruse M, Timm H et al. The DOMUS study protocol: a randomized clinical trial of accelerated transition from oncological treatment to specialized palliative care at home. BMC Palliative Care. 2014; 13:44 [PMC free article: PMC4169691] [PubMed: 25242890]
219.
Nyatanga B. Extending virtual wards to palliative care delivered in the community. British Journal of Community Nursing. 2014; 19(7):328–329 [PubMed: 25039340]
220.
O’Reilly J, Lowson K, Green J, Young JB, Forster A. Post-acute care for older people in community hospitals-a cost-effectiveness analysis within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Age and Ageing. 2008; 37(5):513–520 [PubMed: 18515290]
221.
O’Reilly J, Lowson K, Young J, Forster A, Green J, Small N. A cost-effectiveness analysis within a randomised controlled trial of post-acute care of older people in a community hospital. BMJ. United Kingdom 2006; 333:228–231 [PMC free article: PMC1523497] [PubMed: 16861254]
222.
Ojoo JC, Moon T, McGlone S, Martin K, Gardiner ED, Greenstone MA et al. Patients’ and carers’ preferences in two models of care for acute exacerbations of COPD: results of a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2002; 57(2):167–169 [PMC free article: PMC1746235] [PubMed: 11828049]
223.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Purchasing power parities (PPP), 2007. Available from: http://www​.oecd.org/std/ppp
224.
Palmer Hill S, Flynn J, Crawford EJP. Early discharge following total knee replacement -- a trial of patient satisfaction and outcomes using an orthopaedic outreach team. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing. 2000; 4(3):121–126
225.
Palmieri F, Alberici F, Deales A, Furneri G, Menichetti F, Orchi N et al. Early discharge of infectious disease patients: an opportunity or extra cost for the Italian Healthcare System? Le Infezioni in Medicina. 2013; 21(4):270–278 [PubMed: 24335457]
226.
Pandian JD. A multicentre, randomized, blinded outcome assessor, controlled trial, whether a family-led caregiver-delivered home-based rehabilitation intervention versus usual care is an effective, affordable Early Support Discharge strategy for those with disabling stroke in India. 2013. Available from: http://www​.ctri.nic.in​/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2​.php?trialid=6195 [Last accessed: 29 December 14 A.D.]
227.
Pandian JD, Felix C, Alim M, Gandhi DBC, Syrigapu A, Tugnawat DK. The Attend trial-family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India: a modified version of early supported discharge with a caregiver delivered home based poststroke rehabilitation. International Journal of Stroke. 2014; 9:(Suppl 3):252–253
228.
Patel A, Knapp M, Perez I, Evans A, Kalra L. Alternative strategies for stroke care: cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from a prospective randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2004; 35(1):196–203 [PubMed: 14684783]
229.
Patel H, Shafazand M, Ekman I, Hojgard S, Swedberg K, Schaufelberger M. Home care as an option in worsening chronic heart failure - a pilot study to evaluate feasibility, quality adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2008; 10(7):675–681 [PubMed: 18573692]
230.
Penque S, Petersen B, Arom K, Ratner E, Halm M. Early discharge with home health care in the coronary artery bypass patient. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing. 1999; 18(6):40–48 [PubMed: 10640054]
231.
Pittiglio LI, Harris MA, Mili F. Development and evaluation of a three-dimensional virtual hospital unit: VI-MED. Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2011; 29(5):267–271 [PubMed: 21633205]
232.
Plochg T, Delnoij DMJ, van der Kruk TF, Janmaat TACM, Klazinga NS. Intermediate care: for better or worse? Process evaluation of an intermediate care model between a university hospital and a residential home. BMC Health Services Research. 2005; 5:38 [PMC free article: PMC1168893] [PubMed: 15910689]
233.
Pozzilli C, Brunetti M, Amicosante AMV, Gasperini C, Ristori G, Palmisano L et al. Home based management in multiple sclerosis: results of a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 2002; 73(3):250–255 [PMC free article: PMC1738043] [PubMed: 12185154]
234.
Prior MK, Bahret BA, Allen RI, Pasupuleti S. The efficacy of a senior outreach program in the reduction of hospital readmissions and emergency department visits among chronically ill seniors. Social Work in Health Care. 2012; 51(4):345–360 [PubMed: 22489558]
235.
Puig-Junoy J, Casas A, Font-Planells J, Escarrabill J, Hernandez C, Alonso J et al. The impact of home hospitalization on healthcare costs of exacerbations in COPD patients. European Journal of Health Economics. 2007; 8(4):325–332 [PubMed: 17221178]
236.
Qaddoura A, Yazdan-Ashoori P, Kabali C, Thabane L, Haynes RB, Connolly SJ et al. Efficacy of hospital at home in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One. 2015; 10(6):e0129282 [PMC free article: PMC4460137] [PubMed: 26052944]
237.
Ram FSF, Wedzicha JA, Wright JJ, Greenstone M, Lasserson TJ. Hospital at home for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009; Issue 4:CD003573. DOI:DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003573 [PubMed: 14583984] [CrossRef]
238.
Raphael MJ, Nadeau-Fredette AC, Tennankore KK, Chan CT. A virtual ward for home hemodialysis patients - a pilot trial. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. 2015; 2:37 [PMC free article: PMC4628781] [PubMed: 26527130]
239.
Raphael R, Yves D, Giselle C, Magali M, Odile CM. Cancer treatment at home or in the hospital: what are the costs for French public health insurance? Findings of a comprehensive-cancer centre. Health Policy. 2005; 72(2):141–148 [PubMed: 15802149]
240.
Ricauda NA, Bo M, Molaschi M, Massaia M, Salerno D, Amati D et al. Home hospitalization service for acute uncomplicated first ischemic stroke in elderly patients: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2004; 52(2):278–283 [PubMed: 14728641]
241.
Rich MW, Vinson JM, Sperry JC, Shah AS, Spinner LR, Chung MK et al. Prevention of readmission in elderly patients with congestive heart failure: results of a prospective, randomized pilot study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1993; 8(11):585–590 [PubMed: 8289096]
242.
Richards DA, Toop LJ, Epton MJ, McGeoch GRB, Town GI, Wynn-Thomas SMH et al. Home management of mild to moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Journal of Australia. 2005; 183(5):235–238 [PubMed: 16138795]
243.
Richards SH. Correction: randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness and acceptability of an early discharge, hospital at home scheme with acute hospital care (British Medical Journal (1998) 13 June (1796-1801)). BMJ. 1998; 317(7161):786 [PMC free article: PMC28580] [PubMed: 9624070]
244.
Richards SH, Coast J, Gunnell DJ, Peters TJ, Pounsford J, Darlow MA. Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness and acceptability of an early discharge, hospital at home scheme with acute hospital care. BMJ. 1998; 316(7147):1796–1801 [PMC free article: PMC28580] [PubMed: 9624070]
245.
Richardson G, Griffiths P, Wilson-Barnett J, Spilsbury K, Batehup L. Economic evaluation of a nursing-led intermediate care unit. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2001; 17(3):442–450 [PubMed: 11495387]
246.
Robinson J. Facilitating earlier transfer of care from acute stroke services into the community. Nursing Times. 2009; 105(12):12–13 [PubMed: 19363928]
247.
Rodriguez-Cerrillo M, Poza-Montoro A, Fernandez-Diaz E, Inurrieta-Romero A, Matesanz-David M. Home treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2012; 23(1):e10–e13 [PubMed: 22153541]
248.
Rodriguez-Cerrillo M, Poza-Montoro A, Fernandez-Diaz E, Romero AI. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis and comorbidity can be treated at home. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2010; 21(6):553–554 [PubMed: 21111943]
249.
Rosbotham-Williams A. Integrating health care services for older people. Nursing Times. 2002; 98(32):40–41 [PubMed: 12211912]
250.
Round A, Crabb T, Buckingham K, Mejzner R, Pearce V, Ayres R et al. Six month outcomes after emergency admission of elderly patients to a community or a district general hospital. Family Practice. 2004; 21(2):173–179 [PubMed: 15020387]
251.
Rout A, Ashby S, Maslin-Prothero S, Masterson A, Priest H, Beach M et al. A literature review of interprofessional working and intermediate care in the UK. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2011; 20(5-6):775–783 [PubMed: 20662994]
252.
Rowley JM, Hampton JR, Mitchell JR. Home care for patients with suspected myocardial infarction: use made by general practitioners of a hospital team for initial management. BMJ. 1984; 289(6442):403–406 [PMC free article: PMC1442427] [PubMed: 6432118]
253.
Ruckley CV, Cuthbertson C, Fenwick N, Prescott RJ, Garraway WM. Day care after operations for hernia or varicose veins: a controlled trial. British Journal of Surgery. 1978; 65(7):456–459 [PubMed: 352473]
254.
Rudkin ST, Harrison S, Harvey I, White RJ. A randomised trial of hospital v home rehabilitation in severe chronic ostructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thorax. 1997; 52:(Suppl 6):A11
255.
Santana S, Rente J, Neves C, Redondo P, Szczygiel N, Larsen T et al. Early home-supported discharge for patients with stroke in Portugal: a randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2017; 31(2):197–206 [PMC free article: PMC5302124] [PubMed: 26837431]
256.
Sartain SA, Maxwell MJ, Todd PJ, Jones KH, Bagust A, Haycox A et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing an acute paediatric hospital at home scheme with conventional hospital care. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2002; 87(5):371–375 [PMC free article: PMC1763073] [PubMed: 12390903]
257.
Saysell E, Routley C. Pilot project of an intermediate palliative care unit within a registered care home. International Journal of Palliative Nursing. 2004; 10(8):393–398 [PubMed: 15365494]
258.
Schachter ME, Bargman JM, Copland M, Hladunewich M, Tennankore KK, Levin A et al. Rationale for a home dialysis virtual ward: design and implementation. BMC Nephrology. 2014; 15:33 [PMC free article: PMC3930556] [PubMed: 24528505]
259.
Scheinberg L, Koren MJ, Bluestone M, McDowell FH. Effects of early hospital discharge to home care on the costs and outcome of care of stroke patients: a randomised trial in progress. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 1986; 1:289–296
260.
Schneller K. Intermediate care for homeless people: results of a pilot project. Emergency Nurse. 2012; 20(6):20–24 [PubMed: 23167008]
261.
Schou L, Ostergaard B, Rasmussen LS, Rydahl-Hansen S, Jakobsen AS, Emme C et al. Telemedicine-based treatment versus hospitalization in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and exacerbation: effect on cognitive function. A randomized clinical trial. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health. 2014; 20(7):640–646 [PubMed: 24820535]
262.
Schraibman IG, Milne AA, Royle EM. Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001; Issue 2:CD003076. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003076 [PubMed: 11406067] [CrossRef]
263.
Scott IA. Public hospital bed crisis: too few or too misused? Australian Health Review. 2010; 34(3):317–324 [PubMed: 20797364]
264.
Senaratne MP, Irwin ME, Shaben S, Griffiths J, Nagendran J, Kasza L et al. Feasibility of direct discharge from the coronary/intermediate care unit after acute myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1999; 33(4):1040–1046 [PubMed: 10091833]
265.
Shepperd S. A randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home with in-patient hospital care 1998.
266.
Shepperd S. Hospital at home: the evidence is not compelling. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005; 143(11):840–841 [PubMed: 16330798]
267.
Shepperd S, Harwood D, Gray A, Vessey M, Morgan P. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. II: cost minimisation analysis. BMJ. 1998; 316(7147):1791–1796 [PMC free article: PMC28579] [PubMed: 9624069]
268.
Shepperd S, Harwood D, Jenkinson C, Gray A, Vessey M, Morgan P. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. I: three month follow up of health outcomes. BMJ. 1998; 316(7147):1786–1791 [PMC free article: PMC28578] [PubMed: 9624068]
269.
Shepperd S, Iliffe S. The effectiveness of hospital at home compared with in-patient hospital care: a systematic review. Journal of Public Health Medicine. 1998; 20(3):344–350 [PubMed: 9793901]
270.
Shepperd S, Iliffe S. Hospital at home versus in-patient hospital care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005; Issue 3:CD000356. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000356.pub2 [PubMed: 16034853] [CrossRef]
271.
Shepperd S, Doll H, Angus RM, Clarke MJ, Iliffe S, Kalra L et al. Hospital at home admission avoidance. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008; Issue 4:CD007491. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007491 [PMC free article: PMC4033791] [PubMed: 18843751] [CrossRef]
272.
Shepperd S, Doll H, Angus RM, Clarke MJ, Iliffe S, Kalra L et al. Avoiding hospital admission through provision of hospital care at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2009; 180(2):175–182 [PMC free article: PMC2621299] [PubMed: 19153394]
273.
Shepperd S, Doll H, Broad J, Gladman J, Iliffe S, Langhorne P et al. Early discharge hospital at home. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009; Issue 1:CD000356. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000356.pub3 [PMC free article: PMC4175532] [PubMed: 19160179] [CrossRef]
274.
Shepperd S, Iliffe S, Doll HA, Clarke MJ, Kalra L, Wilson AD et al. Admission avoidance hospital at home. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016; Issue 9:CD007491. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007491.pub2 [PMC free article: PMC6457791] [PubMed: 27583824] [CrossRef]
275.
Sidebottom AC, Jorgenson A, Richards H, Kirven J, Sillah A. Inpatient palliative care for patients with acute heart failure: outcomes from a randomized trial. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2015; 18(2):134–142 [PubMed: 25479182]
276.
Sinclair AJ, Conroy SP, Davies M, Bayer AJ. Post-discharge home-based support for older cardiac patients: a randomised controlled trial. Age and Ageing. 2005; 34(4):338–343 [PubMed: 15955757]
277.
Skwarska E, Cohen G, Skwarski KM, Lamb C, Bushell D, Parker S et al. Randomized controlled trial of supported discharge in patients with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2000; 55(11):907–912 [PMC free article: PMC1745644] [PubMed: 11050258]
278.
Stephenson AE, Chetwynd SJ. A method of analysing general practioner decision making concerning home or hospital coronary care. Community Health Studies. 1984; 8(3):297–300 [PubMed: 6518748]
279.
Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, Georghiou T, Lewis GH. The role of matched controls in building an evidence base for hospital-avoidance schemes: a retrospective evaluation. Health Services Research. 2012; 47(4):1679–1698 [PMC free article: PMC3401405] [PubMed: 22224902]
280.
Stewart S, Marley JE, Horowitz JD. Effects of a multidisciplinary, home-based intervention on unplanned readmissions and survival among patients with chronic congestive heart failure: a randomised controlled study. The Lancet. 1999; 354(9184):1077–1083 [PubMed: 10509499]
281.
Stewart S, Pearson S, Horowitz JD. Effects of a home-based intervention among patients with congestive heart failure discharged from acute hospital care. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1998; 158(10):1067–1072 [PubMed: 9605777]
282.
Stromberg A, Martensson J, Fridlund B, Levin LA, Karlsson JE, Dahlstrom U. Nurse-led heart failure clinics improve survival and self-care behaviour in patients with heart failure: results from a prospective, randomised trial. European Heart Journal. 2003; 24(11):1014–1023 [PubMed: 12788301]
283.
Subirana Serrate R, Ferrer-Roca O, Gonzalez-Davila E. A cost-minimization analysis of oncology home care versus hospital care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2001; 7(4):226–232 [PubMed: 11506758]
284.
Suijker JJ, Buurman BM, ter Riet G, van Rijn M, de Haan RJ, de Rooij SE et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment, multifactorial interventions and nurse-led care coordination to prevent functional decline in community-dwelling older persons: protocol of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Health Services Research. 2012; 12:85 [PMC free article: PMC3374886] [PubMed: 22462516]
285.
Suwanwela NC, Phanthumchinda K, Limtongkul S, Suvanprakorn P. Comparison of short (3-day) hospitalization followed by home care treatment and conventional (10-day) hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2002; 13(4):267–271 [PubMed: 12011552]
286.
Talcott JA, Yeap BY, Clark JA, Siegel RD, Loggers ET, Lu C et al. Safety of early discharge for low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011; 29(30):3977–3983 [PMC free article: PMC3675706] [PubMed: 21931024]
287.
Teng J, Mayo NE, Latimer E, Hanley J, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R et al. Costs and caregiver consequences of early supported discharge for stroke patients. Stroke. 2003; 34(2):528–536 [PubMed: 12574571]
288.
Teuffel O, Amir E, Alibhai S, Beyene J, Sung L. Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer. Canada 2011; 104(9):1377–1383 [PMC free article: PMC3101923] [PubMed: 21468048]
289.
Thomas DR, Brahan R, Haywood BP. Inpatient community-based geriatric assessment reduces subsequent mortality. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1993; 41(2):101–104 [PubMed: 8426028]
290.
Thomas JA. Hospital in the home: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Journal of Australia. 1999; 171(2):110–111 [PubMed: 10523152]
291.
Thorne D, Jeffery S. Intermediate care. Homeward bound. Health Service Journal. 2001; 111(5785):28–29 [PubMed: 11810755]
292.
Thornton J, Elliott RA, Tully MP, Dodd M, Webb AK. Clinical and economic choices in the treatment of respiratory infections in cystic fibrosis: comparing hospital and home care. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. 2005; 4(4):239–247 [PubMed: 16242385]
293.
Thorsen AM, Holmqvist LW, de Pedro-Cuesta J, von Koch L. A randomized controlled trial of early supported discharge and continued rehabilitation at home after stroke: five-year follow-up of patient outcome. Stroke. 2005; 36(2):297–303 [PubMed: 15618441]
294.
Thorsen AM, Widen Holmqvist L, von Koch L. Early supported discharge and continued rehabilitation at home after stroke: 5-year follow-up of resource use. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2006; 15(4):139–143 [PubMed: 17904066]
295.
Tibaldi V, Aimonino N, Ponzetto M, Stasi MF, Amati D, Raspo S et al. A randomized controlled trial of a home hospital intervention for frail elderly demented patients: behavioral disturbances and caregiver’s stress. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2004; 2004(9):431–436 [PubMed: 15207444]
296.
Tibaldi V, Isaia G, Scarafiotti C, Gariglio F, Zanocchi M, Bo M et al. Hospital at home for elderly patients with acute decompensation of chronic heart failure: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009; 169(17):1569–1575 [PubMed: 19786675]
297.
Tistad M, von Koch L. Usual clinical practice for early supported discharge after stroke with continued rehabilitation at home: an observational comparative study. PloS One. 2015; 10(7):e0133536 [PMC free article: PMC4505888] [PubMed: 26186211]
298.
Trappes-Lomax T, Ellis A, Fox M, Taylor R, Power M, Stead J et al. Buying time I: a prospective, controlled trial of a joint health/social care residential rehabilitation unit for older people on discharge from hospital. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2006; 14(1):49–62 [PubMed: 16324187]
299.
Upton S, Culshaw M, Stephenson J. An observational study to identify factors associated with hospital readmission and to evaluate the impact of mandating validation of discharge prescriptions on readmission rate. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 2014; 22:45–46
300.
Utens CMA, Goossens LMA, Smeenk FWJM, Rutten-van Molken MPMH, van Vliet M, Braken MW et al. Early assisted discharge with generic community nursing for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations: results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(5):e001684 [PMC free article: PMC3488726] [PubMed: 23075570]
301.
Utens CMA, Goossens LMA, Smeenk FWJM, van Schayck OCP, van Litsenburg W, Janssen A et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early assisted discharge for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations: the design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2010; 10:618 [PMC free article: PMC2965725] [PubMed: 20955582]
302.
Utens CMA, Goossens LMA, van Schayck OCP, Rutten-van Molken MPMH, van Litsenburg W, Janssen A et al. Patient preference and satisfaction in hospital-at-home and usual hospital care for COPD exacerbations: results of a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2013; 50(11):1537–1549 [PubMed: 23582671]
303.
Utens CMA, van Schayck OCP, Goossens LMA, Rutten-van Molken MPHM, DeMunck DRAJ, Seezink W et al. Informal caregiver strain, preference and satisfaction in hospital-at-home and usual hospital care for COPD exacerbations: results of a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2014; 51(8):1093–1102 [PubMed: 24486163]
304.
Vianello A, Savoia F, Pipitone E, Nordio B, Gallina G, Paladini L et al. “Hospital at home” for neuromuscular disease patients with respiratory tract infection: a pilot study. Respiratory Care. 2013; 58(12):2061–2068 [PubMed: 23696687]
305.
von Koch L, de Pedro-Cuesta J, Kostulas V, Almazan J, Widen HL. Randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke: one-year follow-up of patient outcome, resource use and cost. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2001; 12(2):131–138 [PubMed: 11490107]
306.
von Koch L, Holmqvist LW, Kostulas V, Almazan J, de Pedro-Cuesta J. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in Southwest Stockholm: outcome at six months. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2000; 32(2):80–86 [PubMed: 10853722]
307.
Wakefield BJ, Ward MM, Holman JE, Ray A, Scherubel M, Burns TL et al. Evaluation of home telehealth following hospitalization for heart failure: a randomized trial. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health. 2008; 14(8):753–761 [PubMed: 18954244]
308.
Walshe C, Luker KA. District nurses’ role in palliative care provision: a realist review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2010; 47(9):1167–1183 [PubMed: 20494357]
309.
Widen Holmqvist L, de Pedro-Cuesta J, Holm M, Kostulas V. Intervention design for rehabilitation at home after stroke. A pilot feasibility study. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1995; 27(1):43–50 [PubMed: 7792549]
310.
Widen HL, de Pedro-Cuesta J, Moller G, Holm M, Siden A. A pilot study of rehabilitation at home after stroke: a health-economic appraisal. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1996; 28(1):9–18 [PubMed: 8701237]
311.
Widen HL, von Koch L, Kostulas V, Holm M, Widsell G, Tegler H et al. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in southwest Stockholm. Stroke. 1998; 29(3):591–597 [PubMed: 9506598]
312.
Wilson A, Parker H, Wynn A, Jagger C, Spiers N, Jones J et al. Randomised controlled trial of effectiveness of Leicester hospital at home scheme compared with hospital care. BMJ. 1999; 319(7224):1542–1546 [PMC free article: PMC28299] [PubMed: 10591717]
313.
Wilson A, Parker H, Wynn A, Spiers N. Performance of hospital-at-home after a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2003; 8(3):160–164 [PubMed: 12869342]
314.
Wilson A, Wynn A, Parker H. Patient and carer satisfaction with ‘hospital at home’: quantitative and qualitative results from a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of General Practice. 2002; 52(474):9–13 [PMC free article: PMC1314211] [PubMed: 11791829]
315.
Winkel A, Ekdahl C, Gard G. Early discharge to therapy-based rehabilitation at home in patients with stroke: a systematic review. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2008; 13(3):167–187
316.
Wolfe CD, Tilling K, Rudd AG. The effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation for stroke patients who remain at home: a pilot randomized trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2000; 14(6):563–569 [PubMed: 11128729]
317.
Woodend AK, Sherrard H, Fraser M, Stuewe L, Cheung T, Struthers C. Telehome monitoring in patients with cardiac disease who are at high risk of readmission. Heart and Lung: Journal of Acute and Critical Care. 2008; 37(1):36–45 [PubMed: 18206525]
318.
Woodhams V, de Lusignan S, Mughal S, Head G, Debar S, Desombre T et al. Triumph of hope over experience: learning from interventions to reduce avoidable hospital admissions identified through an Academic Health and Social Care Network. BMC Health Services Research. 2012; 12:153 [PMC free article: PMC3476394] [PubMed: 22682525]
319.
Young J, Green J. Effects of delays in transfer on independence outcomes for older people requiring postacute care in community hospitals in England. Journal of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2010; 1(2):48–52
320.
Young J, Sharan U. Medical assessment and direct admissions to a community hospital. Clinical Governance. 2003; 8(3):213–217
321.
Young JB, Robinson M, Chell S, Sanderson D, Chaplin S, Burns E et al. A whole system study of intermediate care services for older people. Age and Ageing. 2005; 34(6):577–583 [PubMed: 16267182]
322.
Young J, Green J, Forster A, Small N, Lowson K, Bogle S et al. Postacute care for older people in community hospitals: a multicenter randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2007; 55(12):1995–2002 [PubMed: 17979957]
323.
Young T, Busgeeth K. Home-based care for reducing morbidity and mortality in people infected with HIV/AIDS. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010; Issue 1:CD005417. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005417.pub2 [PubMed: 20091575] [CrossRef]
324.
Ytterberg C, Thorsen AM, Widen HL, Koch L. Changes in health-related quality of life between 1 and 5 years after stroke: a randomized controlled trial of early supported discharge and continued rehabilitation at home. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2009; 27:(Suppl 6):43
325.
Zimmer JG, Groth-Juncker A, McCusker J. A randomized controlled study of a home health care team. American Journal of Public Health. 1985; 75(2):134–141 [PMC free article: PMC1645992] [PubMed: 3966617]

Appendices

Appendix A. Review protocol

Table 11Review protocol: Alternatives to hospital care

Review questionAlternatives to hospital care
Guideline condition and its definitionAcute Medical Emergencies. Definition: a medical emergency can arise in anyone, for example, in people without a previously diagnosed medical condition, with an acute exacerbation of underlying chronic illness, after surgery or after trauma.
ObjectivesTo determine if wider provision of community-based intermediate care prevents people from staying in hospitals longer than necessary while not impacting on patient and carer outcomes.
Review populationAdults and young people (16 years and over) with a suspected or confirmed AME or patients at risk of AME.

Adults (17 years and above).

Young people (aged 16-17 years).

Line of therapy not an inclusion criterion.

Interventions and comparators: generic/class; specific/drug

(All interventions will be compared with each other, unless otherwise stated)

Hospital at home; hospital at home led by primary care.

Hospital at home; hospital at home led by secondary care.

Step up/down care; step up/down care.

Rapid response schemes.

Virtual wards.

Hospital-based care/services.

Usual Care.

Outcomes
-

Quality of life at during study period (Continuous) CRITICAL

-

Length of hospital stay at during study period (Continuous) IMPORTANT

-

Mortality at during study period (Dichotomous) CRITICAL

-

Avoidable adverse events at during study period (Dichotomous) CRITICAL

-

Patient and/or carer satisfaction at during study period (Dichotomous) CRITICAL

-

Number of presentations to Emergency Department at during study period (Dichotomous) IMPORTANT

-

Number of admissions to hospital at after 30 days of first admission (Dichotomous) CRITICAL

-

Number of GP presentations at during study period (Dichotomous) IMPORTANT

-

Readmission up to 30 days (Dichotomous) IMPORTANT

Study designSystematic reviews (SRs) of RCTs, RCTs, observational studies only to be included if no relevant SRs or RCTs are identified.
Unit of randomizationPatient.
Crossover studyPermitted.
Minimum duration of studyNot defined.
Stratification

Early discharge.

Admission avoidance.

Reasons for stratificationEach of them targets a separate outcome: early discharge would be primarily aimed at reducing length of stay, while admission avoidance would be primarily aimed at reducing hospital admission. Also, the population would be different as the admission avoidance group could be managed at home for the whole episode of care (they could be cared for at home from the start) while the early discharge group needs to be “stabilised” at hospital first then discharged.
Subgroup analyses if there is heterogeneity
-

Frail elderly (frail elderly; not frail elderly); different from younger population.

Search criteria

Databases: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library.

Date limits for search: none.

Language: English.

Appendix B. Clinical article selection

Figure 1. Flow chart of clinical article selection for the review of alternatives to hospital care.

Figure 1Flow chart of clinical article selection for the review of alternatives to hospital care

Appendix C. Forest plots

C.1.1. Early discharge

Figure 2. Mortality- Early discharge.

Figure 2Mortality- Early discharge

Figure 3. Readmissions (30 days) – Early discharge.

Figure 3Readmissions (30 days) – Early discharge

Figure 4. Admissions – Early discharge.

Figure 4Admissions – Early discharge

Figure 5. Presentations to ED - Early discharge.

Figure 5Presentations to ED - Early discharge

Figure 6. Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - Early discharge.

Figure 6Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - Early discharge

Figure 7. Length of stay (days in treatment) - Early discharge.

Figure 7Length of stay (days in treatment) - Early discharge

Figure 8. Quality of life(high score is good) - Early discharge.

Figure 8Quality of life(high score is good) - Early discharge

Figure 9. Quality of life (higher values better QoL) - Early discharge.

Figure 9Quality of life (higher values better QoL) - Early discharge

Figure 10. Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - Early discharge.

Figure 10Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - Early discharge

Figure 11. Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher values more satisfied) - Early discharge.

Figure 11Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher values more satisfied) - Early discharge

Figure 12. Carer satisfaction (dichotomous) - Early discharge.

Figure 12Carer satisfaction (dichotomous) - Early discharge

C.1.2. Admission avoidance

Figure 13. Mortality - Admission avoidance.

Figure 13Mortality - Admission avoidance

Figure 14. Readmissions (< 30 days) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 14Readmissions (< 30 days) - Admission avoidance

Figure 15. Admissions(>30 days) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 15Admissions(>30 days) - Admission avoidance

Figure 16. Presentations to ED - Admission avoidance.

Figure 16Presentations to ED - Admission avoidance

Figure 17. Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 17Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - Admission avoidance

Figure 18. Length of stay (days in treatment) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 18Length of stay (days in treatment) - Admission avoidance

Figure 19. Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 19Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance

Figure 20. Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 20Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - Admission avoidance

Figure 21. Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher score is good) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 21Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher score is good) - Admission avoidance

Figure 22. Days to discharge (hazard ratio) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 22Days to discharge (hazard ratio) - Admission avoidance

Figure 23. Carer satisfaction (continuous) - Admission avoidance.

Figure 23Carer satisfaction (continuous) - Admission avoidance

Figure 24. Adverse events – Admission avoidance.

Figure 24Adverse events – Admission avoidance

C.1.3. Individual patient data analyses

Figure 25. IPD generic inverse variance early discharge elderly medical mortality at 3 months.

Figure 25IPD generic inverse variance early discharge elderly medical mortality at 3 months

Figure 26. IPD generic inverse variance early discharge readmission at 3 months.

Figure 26IPD generic inverse variance early discharge readmission at 3 months

Figure 27. Readmission 3 months (excluding readmissions in the first 14 days).

Figure 27Readmission 3 months (excluding readmissions in the first 14 days)

Figure 28. Mortality 3 months.

Figure 28Mortality 3 months

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

D.1.1. Cochrane Review

Download PDF (400K)

Hospital at home (Primary Care)

Download PDF (249K)

Hospital at Home (Secondary Care)

Download PDF (261K)

D.2. Hospital at Home (Primary & Secondary Care)

Download PDF (220K)

D.3. Step up – Step down/Community Hospital

Download PDF (291K)

Virtual Wards

Download PDF (176K)

Appendix E. Economic evidence tables

E.1. Hospital at Home

E.1.1. Admission avoidance

Download PDF (439K)

E.1.2. Early discharge

Download PDF (315K)

E.1.3. Both admission avoidance and early discharge

Download PDF (364K)

E.2. Step-up/Step-down

Download PDF (328K)

E.3. Virtual wards

Download PDF (305K)

E.4. Rapid response

Download PDF (298K)

Appendix F. GRADE tables

Table 12Clinical evidence profiles- Alternatives compared with hospital care

Quality assessmentNo of patientsEffectQualityImportance
No of studiesDesignRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsAlternativesHospital careRelative (95% CI)Absolute
Mortality - early discharge - Hospital at home led by primary care
5randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

17/309

(5.5%)

6.9%RR 0.9 (0.47 to 1.71)7 fewer per 1000 (from 37 fewer to 49 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by primary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None121101-MD 2.44 lower (3.34 to 1.54 lower)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Admissions - early discharge - Hospital at home led by primary care
6randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

96/317

(30.3%)

36.7%RR 0.92 (0.73 to 1.15)29 fewer per 1000 (from 99 fewer to 55 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Presentations to ED - early discharge - Hospital at home led by primary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

11/121

(9.1%)

20.8%

RR 0.44

(0.22 to 0.86)

116 fewer per 1000 (from 29 fewer to 162 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

IMPORTANT
Quality of life (high score is good) - early discharge - HAH led by primary care (SGRQ; change score; reversed)
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None151131-MD 3.49 higher (0.38 lower to 7.36 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Quality of life (higher values better QoL) - early discharge - HAH led by primary care (COOP chart; change score; reversed)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None3837-SMD 0.17 higher (0.29 lower to 0.62 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher values more satisfied) - early discharge - Hospital at home primary care
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone150135-SMD 0.25 higher (0.01 to 0.48 higher)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

CRITICAL
Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by Primary care
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

25/27

(92.6%)

88.9%RR 1.04 (0.88 to 1.24)36 more per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 213 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Carer satisfaction (dichotomous) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by primary care
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

18/20

(92.6%)

92.9%RR 0.97 (0.79 to 1.19)28 fewer per 1000 (from 195 fewer to 177 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - early discharge - HAH led by primary care (EQ-5D; change score)
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None5447-MD 0.04 higher (0.07 lower to 0.16 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Mortality - early discharge - Hospital at home led by secondary care
1randomised trialsvery serious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None2/13 (15.4%)11.1%RR 1.38 (0.22 to 8.59)42 more per 1000 (from 87 fewer to 842 more)

⨁◯◯◯

VERY LOW

CRITICAL
Re-Admissions early discharge- Hospital at home led by secondary care
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None1/4212.7%RR 0.50 (0.05 to 5.31)64 fewer per 1000 (121 fewer to 547 more)

⨁◯◯◯

VERY LOW

IMPORTANT
Mortality - early discharge - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
4randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

56/476

(11.8%)

14%RR 1.02 (0.72 to 1.44)3 more per 1000 (from 39 fewer to 62 more)

⨁◯◯◯

VERY LOW

CRITICAL
Readmissions (30 days) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

30/143

(21%)

12.7%RR 1.66 (0.97 to 2.83)84 more per 1000 (from 4 fewer to 232 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

IMPORTANT
Admissions - early discharge - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
5randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

99/448

(22.1%)

20%RR 0.94 (0.74 to 1.2)12 fewer per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 40 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

IMPORTANT
Length of stay (days in treatment) - early discharge - Hospital at led by primary and secondary care (Better indicated by lower values)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None143142-MD 3.1 higher (1.81 to 4.39 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Carer satisfaction (dichotomous) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

46/69

(66.7%)

41.4%RR 1.61 (1.14 to 2.28)253 more per 1000 (from 58 more to 530 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher values more satisfied) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone140141-SMD 0.25 higher (0.01 to 0.48 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - early discharge - HAH led by primary and secondary care (final score; SF-36; physical)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone121120-MD 0.4 higher (2.2 lower to 3 higher)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

CRITICAL
Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - early discharge - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

93/112

(83%)

72.5%RR 1.15 (1 to 1.32)109 more per 1000 (from 0 more to 232 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - early discharge - HAH led by primary and secondary care (final score; SF-36; mental)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone121120-MD 1.3 higher (1.55 lower to 4.15 higher)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

CRITICAL
Mortality - early discharge - Step up/down care
3randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

124/542

(22.9%)

21.5%RR 0.88 (0.71 to 1.1)26 fewer per 1000 (from 62 more to 22 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - early discharge - Step up/down care (Better indicated by lower values)
2randomised trialsserious risk of bias2very serious3no serious indirectnessserious1None258260-MD 3.59 higher (1.23 to 5.95 higher)

⨁◯◯◯

VERY LOW

CRITICAL
Readmissions - early discharge - Step up/down care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

14/72

(19.4%)

35.7%RR 0.54 (0.31 to 0.96)164 fewer per 1000 (from 14 fewer to 246 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

IMPORTANT
Mortality- early discharge- virtual wards
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

3/29

(10.3%)

14.3%RR 0.72 (0.18 to 2.95)40 fewer per 1000 (from 117 more to 279 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

VERY LOW

CRITICAL
Quality of life -early discharge- virtual wards (EQ-5D summary index; change score)
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone2928-MD 0.00 higher (0.15 lower to 0.15 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Mortality - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by primary care
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

26/149

(17.4%)

30.9%RR 0.82 (0.53 to 1.29)56 fewer per 1000 (from 145 fewer to 90 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Admissions(>30 days) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by primary care
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

23/125

(18.4%)

10.3%RR 1.29 (0.73 to 2.29)30 more per 1000 (from 28 fewer to 133 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Adverse events - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by primary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

10/24

(41.7%)

32%RR 1.3 (0.62 to 2.73)96 more per 1000 (from 122 fewer to 554 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Days to discharge (hazard ratio) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at Home Primary Care (Hazard Ratio)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

0/98

(0%)

0%HR 0.95 (0.71 to 1.27)-

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by Primary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

87/91

(95.6%)

98.9%RR 0.97 (0.92 to 1.02)30 fewer per 1000 (from 79 fewer to 20 more)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

CRITICAL
Readmissions (< 30 days) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by primary care
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone15/14510.3%RR 4.68 (1.53 to 14.31)114 more per 1000 (from 16 more to 413 more)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

IMPORTANT
Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance - HAH led by primary care (final score; SF-12; mental)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None2425-MD 0.6 lower (5.46 lower to 4.26 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance - HAH led by primary care (final score; SF-12; physical)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None2425-MD 3.6 lower (8.78 lower to 1.58 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Mortality - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by secondary care
4randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

21/163

(12.9%)

15%RR 0.8 (0.47 to 1.35)30 fewer per 1000 (from 80 fewer to 53 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Admissions(>30 days) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by secondary care
3randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

40/126

(31.7%)

50%RR 0.56 (0.42 to 0.75)220 fewer per 1000 (from 125 fewer to 290 fewer)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Length of stay (days in treatment) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by secondary care (Better indicated by lower values)
2randomised trialsserious2serious4no serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone8587-MD 4.69 higher (2.86 to 6.52 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance - HAH led by secondary care (change score; SF-36; mental)
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None3734-MD 1.2 higher (1.46 lower to 3.86 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Patient satisfaction (dichotomous) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

49/52

(94.2%)

88.5%RR 1.07 (0.95 to 1.2)62 more per 1000 (from 44 fewer to 177 more)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance - HAH led by secondary care (NHP, change score; reversed)
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasserious5no serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone100105-MD 1.13 higher (0.29 to 1.97 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance - HAH led by secondary care (change score; SF-36; physical)
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None3734-MD 1.4 higher (2.38 lower to 5.18 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Adverse events - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

6/51

(11.8%)

16.3%RR 0.72 (0.27 to 1.93)46 fewer per 1000 (from 119 fewer to 152 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Admissions(>30 days) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
2randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

44/151

(29.1%)

22.1%RR 1.14 (0.74 to 1.74)31 more per 1000 (from 57 fewer to 164 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Mortality - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by both primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

9/100

(9%)

8%RR 1.12 (0.36 to 3.47)10 more per 1000 (from 51 fewer to 198 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Patient Satisfaction (continuous-higher score is good) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by primary and secondary care (reversed scale)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None4020-SMD 1.98 higher (1.33 to 2.64 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Carer satisfaction (continuous) - Admission avoidance - Hospital at home led by primary and secondary care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone2813-SMD 1.55 higher (0.8 to 2.29 higher)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

CRITICAL
Quality of life (high score is good) - Admission avoidance - HAH led by primary and secondary care (SGRQ; change score; reversed)
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None3416-MD 2.83 lower (11.75 lower to 6.09 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Length of stay (initial inpatient days) - Admission avoidance - Step up/down care (Better indicated by lower values)
1randomised trialsserious2no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None7877-MD 4.1 lower (8.58 lower to 0.38 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

IMPORTANT
Mortality - Admission avoidance - Step up/down care
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious1None

8/78

(10.3%)

20.8%RR 0.49 (0.22 to 1.09)106 fewer per 1000 (from 162 fewer to 19 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

MODERATE

CRITICAL
Mortality - Admission avoidance - Virtual wards
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious1None

40/958

(4.2%)

4.9%RR 0.85 (0.56 to 1.28)7 fewer per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 14 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

LOW

CRITICAL
Readmissions (30 days) - Admission avoidance - Virtual wards
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

182/961

(18.9%)

21.3%

RR 0.89

(0.74 to 1.06)

23 fewer per 1000 (from 55 fewer to 13 more)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

IMPORTANT
Presentations to ED - Admission avoidance - Virtual wards
1randomised trialsno serious risk of biasno serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionNone

270/961

(28.1%)

29.6%

RR 0.95

(0.82 to 1.09)

15 fewer per 1000 (from 53 fewer to 27 more)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

HIGH

IMPORTANT
1

Downgraded by 1 increment if the confidence interval crossed 1 MID point, and downgraded by 2 increments if the confidence interval crossed 2 MID points.

2

Downgraded by 1 increment if the majority of the evidence was at high risk of bias, and downgraded by 2 increments if the majority of the evidence was at very high risk of bias.

3

Downgraded by 1 or 2 increments because heterogeneity, I2=92%, unexplained by sub-group analysis.

4

Downgraded by 1 or 2 increments because heterogeneity, I2=88%, unexplained by sub-group analysis.

5

Downgraded by 1 or 2 increments because heterogeneity, I2=50%, unexplained by sub-group analysis.

Appendix G. Excluded clinical studies

Table 13Studies excluded from the clinical review

ReferenceReason for exclusion
Abernethy 20132Data presented ‘per patient’ and not overall
Abou el senoun 2014 3Incorrect population and intervention. Planned home versus hospital management for women with preterm pre-labour rupture of membranes
Adib-hajbaghery 2013 4Incorrect intervention. Effect of post-discharge follow-up on re-admission of patients with heart failure
Adler 19785Not relevant: patients following elective surgery
Aimonino 20009Conference abstract; later published as Ricauda 2004240
Aimonino 20018Patients not treated for acute medical emergency (advanced dementia patients)
Alder 197810Incorrect population- Patients following elective surgery (hernia and varicose veins)
Allen 199911Not RCT; description of a website
Anderson 2000A12Included in community rehab review
Anderson 2002B13Not RCT; Systematic review
Anderson 2002A14No clinical outcomes; Costs only
Andrei 201115Abstract
Anonymous 1982B1Not relevant comparison
Armstrong 2008B17Not RCT; Retrospective single arm study
Askim 200918conference abstract
Aujesky 201119RCT but no community care (self- administered injections)
Avlund 200220Incorrect intervention. comprehensive geriatric assessment with follow-up by interdisciplinary geriatric team after discharge from hospital compared to existing discharge procedures
Bajwah 201522Not relevant intervention. Palliative care for patients with advanced fibrotic lung disease. Study to be considered for community palliative review
Bai 201321Not RCT; systematic review
Bakken 201224No RCT; not relevant
Balaban 200825Incorrect intervention. The study evaluated a discharge transfer intervention designed to improve communication between inpatient and outpatient care teams.
Barnes 200326Not RCT; review
Beech 200427Not RCT; service evaluation
Bernhaut 200228Not RCT, service evaluation
Bethell 199029Not substitute for usual care; control group received no intervention, only advice what exercises they could do by themselves
Beynon 200930Not RCT; literature review
Biese 201431Incorrect intervention-post-discharge telephone call follow-up by a nurse among older adults discharged home from the emergency department
Blackburn 200032Not RCT; not relevant; costs only
Blair 201133Not RCT; systematic review
Board 200034Not relevant; costs only
Booth 200435Not relevant; patients following bypass surgery
Boston 200136Not RCT; prospective non-randomised comparative study
Boter 2004 37Incorrect intervention. Study to be considered in the community nursing review.
Bowman 199839Not RCT; review
Brooks 200240Not RCT; retrospective case study
Brooks 200341Not RCT; retrospective documentary analysis
Brunner 200842Not RCT; other experimental design
Bryan 201043Not RCT; literature review
Buus 201344Protocol only; no study data
Campbell 200145No clinical outcomes; costs only
Caplan 200648Included in community rehab review
Caplan 201249Not RCT; systematic review
Caplan 200450Comparison is not hospital-based care
Carroll 200551Not RCT; review
Cassel 201052Not RCT; review
Chan 201153Not RCT; Cochrane review, but NO included studies as none met the criteria
Chan 201354Not RCT; Cochrane review, but NO included studies as none met the criteria
Chappell 199355Not relevant; retrospective cost analysis
Chard 200656Not RCT; review
Chen 2012A57Not relevant; costs associated with acquired brain injury
Chumbler 201558Not relevant intervention -multifaceted stroke tele-rehabilitation intervention on falls-related self-efficacy and satisfaction with care. Study to be considered in the community rehab review
Coast 59Not relevant; majority of patients with trauma and elective surgery
Cobelli 199660Not RCT; review
Coburn 198961Not RCT; quasi-experimental; cost
Cohen 199462Not RCT; review
Colprim 201264Not RCT; quasi-experimental study
Colprim 201463Not RCT; prospective cohort study
Conley 201665Systematic review- screened for relevant references
Cowie 201469Not RCT; economic analysis
Craig 201470Not RCT; review
Crawford-Faucher 201071Not RCT; systematic review - screened for relevant references
Crotty 200275RCT but not relevant as trauma patients only (hip fracture)
Crotty 200073Not RCT; audit of trauma patients
Crotty 2000A72RCT but not relevant as trauma patients only (hip fracture)
Crotty 200374RCT but not relevant as trauma patients only
Cunliffe 200276Not RCT; qualitative study; abstract only
Dalal 200377Not RCT; non-randomised prospective study
Daly 201378Intervention incorrect. Set in outpatient setting
Deutsch 200681Not RCT; retrospective study
Dey82RCT; but unpublished data only. We have no access to paper and information in Cochrane review (Hospital at home early discharge) is insufficient to categorise the intervention
Dias 2013 84RCT but not relevant (does not compare to inpatient rehabilitation)
Dickson 199985Letter to the editor
DiMartino 86 2014Not RCT; systematic review- screened for relevant references
Dolansky 201087Not RCT
Dombi 200988Not RCT; commentary on costs
Donaldson 198290Not RCT; retrospective study
Donath 200191Not RCT; Commentary
Donlevy 1996A92Not relevant; article is on cross-training to provide care at home on discharge
Donnelly 200293Included in community rehab review
Dorney-Smith 201194Not RCT; case study of the cost of nurse-led hostels for the homeless
Dow 200495Not RCT; case study
Dow 200796Not RCT; qualitative study
Duffy 201097RCT but wrong comparison (control group not in hospital)
Dyar 201298Incorrect intervention. Only discussions of end of life
ECHEVARRIA 201699Systematic review- checked for relevant references
Eldar 2000A100Not RCT; review
Elder 2001101Not RCT; literature review
Emme 2014103RCT; but no relevant outcomes
Emme 2014A104RCT; but no relevant outcomes
Eron 2004105Not RCT; no data
Feltner 2014106Not RCT; systematic review
Fenton 1984107Incorrect intervention- cost- effectiveness of home and hospital psychiatric treatment
Franklin 2012108Not relevant intervention- multifactorial cardiac rehabilitation programme for MI patients. Study to be considered for community rehab review
Gaspoz 1994111Not RCT; prospective cohort study
Ghanem 2010112Not relevant intervention -home based pulmonary rehab programme for COPD. Study to be considered in community rehab review
GJELSVIK 2014113Study already included in the community rehab evidence review
Gladman 1994114Not relevant intervention -follow-up of a controlled trial of domiciliary stroke rehabilitation (DOMINO Study). Study to be considered for community rehab review
Glasby 2008115Not RCT; qualitative study
Glick 1998116Not relevant – observing outcome of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage
Gobbi 2004117Not RCT; and not relevant
Gracey 1992119Not RCT; case studies
Graham 2013120Not RCT; description of organisation of rehabilitation services
Grande 2004121RCT on bereavement. Not relevant.
Graverholt 2014 122Not RCT; review
Greer 2012123Intervention incorrect and no outcomes that match protocol
Gregory 2010124Not RCT; Cross-sectional study
Gregory 2009125Not RCT; retrospective study
Griffiths 2000128Not RCT; exploratory analyses
Griffiths 2005131Not RCT; systematic review- screened for relevant references
Griffiths 2001127RCT but not relevant comparison; both arms in-patient care (nurse led versus consultant managed)
Griffiths 2006A126Not RCT; review
Griffiths 2006130Not RCT; review
Griffiths 2000A129RCT but not relevant comparison (in-patients only)
Gunnell 2000132Not relevant; majority of patients with trauma and elective surgery
Hackett 2002133Not relevant intervention -home based rehab for stroke patients. Study to be considered in community rehab review
Hamlet 2010134Not RCT; uses secondary data. Focus is telemedicine
Hannan 2003135Not RCT
Hansen 1992136Incorrect intervention. The study evaluated a model for follow-up by home visits after discharge from hospital of persons aged 75 years or more.
Hardy 2001137Not RCT; description of a service; and mainly trauma patients
Hansen 1992136Cochrane excluded list: Hospital at home early discharge (study did not evaluate hospital at home, but a model for follow-up visits at home after discharge from hospital)
Hauser 1991139Not RCT; retrospective study
Herr 2012143Not RCT; retrospective study
Heseltine 2001144Not RCT; review on cost
Hernandez 2015142Not relevant intervention -community-based integrated care in frail COPD patients. Study included in the Integrated care review
Hill 1978146RCT but not relevant to today’s approach of managing MI as thrombolytic therapy made admission necessary (Cochrane)
Hill 2013145Incorrect intervention. The study aimed to evaluate the effect of providing tailored falls prevention education for older patients in hospital
Hofstad 2014147Not relevant intervention. Study included in early supported discharge review
Hudson 2013148Incorrect intervention; preparation of caregivers for home palliative acre with education and discussion
Hudson 2013149Incorrect intervention; preparation of caregivers for home palliative acre with education and discussion
Hughes 1990150RCT but has wrong comparison (not in hospital)
Hunger 2015151Not relevant intervention- nurse based case management for aged myocardial infarction patients. Study to be considered in the nurse led review.
Huo 2014152Not RCT; retrospective study. No outcomes of interest
Hwang 2013153Not RCT; observational study. Large sample, but set in Taiwan
Indredavik 1999155Included in community rehab review
Indredavik 2008156RCT but no relevant outcomes
Jackson 2012157Not relevant intervention -in-home, tele-rehabilitation programme for intensive care unit survivors. Study to be considered in community rehab review
Jakobsen 2013158Methodology of RCT only
Jolly 2005161RCT but study aborted prematurely due to language barriers with participants. No data
Jones 1999162Costs only
Jones 2014163Not RCT; case study with little data
Kenny 2002166Not RCT and not relevant
Kinley 2014167Not RCT; retrospective observational study
Konrad 2012168Not RCT; retrospective study
Koopman 1996169RCT but excluded as home care was self-administered
Kornowski 1995170Not RCT; observational study
Kortke 2006171Not RCT; open clinical study (non-randomised)
Korzeniowska-Kubacka 2014172Not RCT; prospective observational study
Langhorne 2000174Cochrane systematic review withdrawn from publication and superseded by Shepperd 2008271
Langhorne 2005175Not RCT; review
Lappegard 2012176Not RCT; retrospective study
Last 2000177Not RCT, service description
Langhorne 2000174Paper withdrawn from publication
Leon 2011179RCT, but patient group and outcomes not relevant (stable HIV patients)
Leppert 2014180Not RCT
Latour 2006178Not relevant intervention. Study evaluated the impact of post-discharge, nurse-led, home-based case management intervention. Study to be considered in community nurse review
Lewis 2007182Not RCT; commentary
Lewis 2011183Not RCT; research protocol only
Lewis 2012185Not RCT; commentary/conceptual paper
Lewis 2013184Not RCT; case studies without data
Lewis 2013186Not RCT; propensity matched controls study based on observational study data
Lim 2003187RCT but not relevant comparison
Linertova 2011188Not RCT; Systematic review- screened for relevant references
Leung 2015181Incorrect study design- quasi experimental study (RCT evidence available)
Liu 2014189Not relevant intervention-home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Study to be considered for community rehab review.
Martin 1994190Wrong comparison
Mason 2003191Not RCT; description of a service
Mather 1976192No description of the type of service patients at home received (excluded by Cochrane too)
Matukaitis 2005193Not RCT. Pilot study and no comparison study
Mayhew 2006194Not RCT; health economics only
Mayo 1998195Conference abstract of study protocol only; duplicate of full paper Mayo 2000196
McKegney 1981197No outcomes of interest
McNamee 1998198Health economic evaluation
McWhinney 1994199No outcome data reported. Authors describe the challenges of conducting a trail in this area
Melin 1992200Not relevant: patients with long-term care needs were recruited. Hospital at Home was substitute for long-term care and not necessarily in-hospital
Melin 1993201Cost evaluation
Meyer 2009203Not RCT; case studies
Muijen 1992205RCT but patients treated for acute, severe mental illness (psychiatric ward versus home); not relevant to AME guideline
Murphy 2005206Not relevant intervention -home exercise programme immediately after hospitalisation for an exacerbation of COPD. Study to be considered in the community rehab review.
Mussi 2013207Not relevant intervention-educative nursing intervention composed of home visits and phone calls. Study to be considered for inclusion in community nursing review
Nicholson 2001215Health economics only
Nissen 2007217Not in English (Danish)
Nordly 2014218Protocol only; no study data
Nyatanga 2014219Not RCT; commentary/conceptual paper
Palmer Hill 2000224Not relevant: patients recovering from knee replacement
Pandian 2013226Trial register only; no data
Pandian 2014227Conference abstract
Patel 2004228Health economic evaluation
Penque 1999230Not RCT; retrospective study
Pittiglio 2011231Not RCT; not relevant
Plochg 2005232Not RCT; process evaluation
Pozzilli 2002233RCT BUT not relevant (Multiple Sclerosis patients)
Prior 2012 234Not RCT
Puig-Junoy 2007235Health economic evaluation
Qaddoura 2015236Systematic review. Checked and ordered relevant references
Ram 2009237Cochrane review- all 7 studies in the review have been included in our evidence review.
Raphael 2015238Incorrect study design. Observational study (RCT evidence available)
Richards 1998 244Not relevant; majority of patients with trauma and elective surgery
Richards 1998A243Not relevant; correction to excluded trial with majority of patients with trauma and elective surgery
Richardson 2001 245Health economic evaluation
Robinson 2009246Not RCT; description of new model of acute care
Rodriguez-Cerrillo 2010248Not RCT; Non-randomised prospective study
Rodriguez-Cerrillo 2012A247Not RCT; no comparison group to home treatment
Round 2004250Not RCT; prospective cohort study
Rosbotham-Williams 2002249Not RCT; review
Rout 2011251Not RCT; review
Rowley 1984252Not RCT. No comparison group
Ruckley 1978253Not relevant: patients following elective surgery
Rudkin 1997254No service provided in community
Santana 2016255Study considered for inclusion in the community rehab review
Sartain 2002256Paediatric patient population
Saysell 2004257Not RCT; pilot study of intermediate palliative care in care home
Schachter 2014258Not RCT; study protocol only
Scheinberg 1986259RCT but does not state what the control group intervention is
Schneller 2012260Not RCT; case study
Schraibman 2001262Incorrect intervention. Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis
Schou 2014261RCT; but no relevant outcomes
Scott 2010263Not RCT; literature review
Senaratne 1999264Cost evaluation
Shepperd 2005270Cochrane review updated in 2008 (Shepperd 2008 which is included in our evidence review)
Shepperd 2016274Cochrane review- relevant references ordered
Subirana Serrate 2001283Not RCT; health economics evaluation
Shepperd 1998269Not RCT; systematic review
Shepperd 2005A266Not RCT; editorial
Shepperd 2009A272Not RCT; systematic review- screened for relevant references
Shepperd 1998A267Costs only; no clinical outcomes
Sidebottom 2015275In-patient care only considered. No alternative.
Sinclair 2005276Not relevant intervention - home-based nurse intervention after suspected myocardial infarction. Study to be considered for community nursing review
Stephenson 1984278Not RCT; conceptual paper
Steventon 2012279Not RCT; retrospective analysis
Stewart 1999280RCT but control group not in hospital.
Stromberg 2003282RCT but only nurse-led follow up appointments in hospital. No actual community care given
Suijker 2012284Protocol only; incorrect intervention
Suwanwela 2002285RCT but not comparable to UK setting as home treatment was managed by Red Cross Volunteers and family members (Thailand)
Teng 2003287Health economic evaluation
Tibaldi 2004295RCT but no relevant outcomes (carer stress data incomplete)
Tistad 2015297Non-RCT; observational
Thomas 1999290conference abstract
Thorne 2001291Not RCT; service description
Trappes-Lomax 2006298RCT but comparison group not appropriate; did not receive ‘usual’ hospital care.
Upton 2014299No RCT; not relevant
Utens 2010301Study protocol of RCT only
Walshe 2010 308Not RCT; review of qualitative papers
Wakefield 2008307RCT but all self-care; wrong comparison
Widen Holmqvist 1996310Health economic evaluation
Widen Holmqvist 1995309Not RCT; observational study
Widen-Holmqvist 1998311Superseded by Thorsen 2005293, 2006294 and Von Koch 2000306,2001305
Winkel 2008315Not RCT; systematic review- screened for relevant references
Wolfe 2000316RCT but excluded from Cochrane because intervention does not substitute for inpatient care; not valid comparison
Woodend 2008317RCT but wrong control group; both at home with no actual care provided.
Woodhams 2012318Not RCT; literature review
Young 2003B320Not RCT; audit
Young 2005B321Not RCT; quasi-experimental study
Young 2010B319RCT but not relevant outcomes
Young 2010323Incorrect intervention; not palliative
Ytterberg 2009324conference abstract

Appendix H. Excluded economic studies

Table 14Studies excluded from the economic review

ReferenceReason for exclusion
Step-up/step-down
Armstrong 200817This study was selectively excluded as it was a partial economic evaluation only looking at costs, based on non-randomised, non-UK evidence. Given that RCTs and UK evidence were included in the review it was felt more applicable evidence was available to inform the review.
Kameshwar 2016165This study was selectively excluded as it was a partial economic evaluation only looking at costs, based on non-randomised non-UK evidence. Given that RCTs and UK evidence were included in the review it was felt more applicable evidence was available to inform the review.
O’Reilly 2006221This study was assessed as partially applicable with minor limitations. However, given that a more applicable UK analysis by O’Reilly 2008220 was available, this study was selectively excluded.
Palmieri 2013225This study was selectively excluded as it was a partial economic evaluation only looking at costs, based on non-randomised non-UK evidence. Given that RCTs and UK evidence were included in the review it was felt more applicable evidence was available to inform the review.
Raphael 2005239This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations. The study was a partial economic evaluation only looking at costs, based on non-randomised, observation evidence of a very small cohort of patients.
Virtual wards
Lewis 2013186This study was assessed as partially applicable with serious limitations. The study is a case-control comparative costing study. QALYs were not used as an outcome and the follow-up was very short (6 months) and does not capture all the difference in costs. The intervention as defined by the study protocol was virtual wards, however, the authors report that after the initial pilot, the service delivered was actually case management rather than virtual wards, so it was difficult to ascertain the nature of the intervention. The comparator used for the controls was not clearly specified.

Footnotes

a

NICE has published guidelines on transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care home settings for adults with social care needs and intermediate care including reablement

Copyright © NICE 2018.
Bookshelf ID: NBK564910

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this page (4.7M)

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...