Is comprehensive geriatric assessment hospital at home a cost-effective alternative to hospital admission for older people?
Singh S., Gray A., Shepperd S., Stott DJ., Ellis G., Hemsley A., Khanna P., Ramsay S., Schiff R., Tsiachristas A., Wilkinson A., Young J.
BACKGROUND: hospital level healthcare in the home guided by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) might provide a less costly alternative to hospitalisation for older people. OBJECTIVE: to determine the cost-effectiveness of CGA admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) compared with hospital admission. DESIGN/INTERVENTION: a cost-effectiveness study alongside a randomised trial of CGA in an admission avoidance HAH setting, compared with admission to hospital. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: older people considered for a hospital admission in nine locations across the UK were randomised using a 2:1 randomisation schedule to admission avoidance HAH with CGA (N = 700), or admission to hospital with CGA when available (N = 355). MEASUREMENTS: quality adjusted life years, resource use and costs at baseline and 6 months; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. The main analysis used complete cases. RESULTS: adjusting for baseline covariates, HAH was less costly than admission to hospital from a health and social care perspective (mean -£2,265, 95% CI: -4,279 to -252), and remained less costly with the addition of informal care costs (mean difference -£2,840, 95% CI: -5,495 to -185). There was no difference in quality adjusted survival. Using multiple imputation for missing data, the mean difference in health and social care costs widened to -£2,458 (95% CI: -4,977 to 61) and societal costs remained significantly lower (-£3,083, 95% CI: -5,880 to -287). There was little change to quality adjusted survival. CONCLUSIONS: CGA HAH is a cost-effective alternative to admission to hospital for selected older people.