Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. I: three month follow up of health outcomes

Objectives: To compare hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care in terms of patient outcomes.

Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. II: cost minimisation analysis

Objectives: To examine the cost of providing hospital at home in place of some forms of inpatient hospital care.

Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness and acceptability of an early discharge, hospital at home scheme with acute hospital care

Objective: To compare effectiveness and acceptability of early discharge to a hospital at home scheme with that of routine discharge from acute hospital.

Hospital at home or acute hospital care? A cost minimisation analysis

Objective: To compare, from the viewpoints of the NHS and social services and of patients, the costs associated with early discharge to a hospital at home scheme and those associated with continued care in an acute hospital.

Financing hospital care in the United States.

Vols. 2-3 published by Blakiston Division, McGraw-Hill.

Cost shifting, hospital financial viability, and accessibility of hospital care : Task Force report to the Council.

Cover title.

Hospital care buyer's guide for suburban Chicago /

Title from cover.

Achieving better in-hospital and after-hospital care of patients with acute cardiac disease

In patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and congestive heart failure (CHF), evidence suggests opportunities for improving in-hospital and after hospital care, patient self-care, and hospital-community integration. A multidisciplinary quality improvement program was designed and instigated in Brisbane in October 2000 involving 250 clinicians at three teaching hospitals, 1080 general practitioners (GPs) from five Divisions of General Practice, 1594 patients with ACS and 904 patients with CHF. Quality improvement interventions were implemented over 17 months after a 6-month baseline period and included: clinical decision support (clinical practice guidelines, reminders, checklists, clinical pathways); educational interventions (seminars, academic detailing); regular performance feedback; patient self-management strategies; and hospital-community integration (discharge referral summaries; community pharmacist liaison; patient prompts to attend GPs). Using a before-after study design to assess program impact, significantly more program patients compared with historical controls received: ACS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and lipid-lowering agents at discharge, aspirin and beta-blockers at 3 months after discharge, inpatient cardiac counselling, and referral to outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. CHF. Assessment for reversible precipitants, use of prophylaxis for deep-venous thrombosis, beta-blockers at discharge, ACE inhibitors at 6 months after discharge, imaging of left ventricular function, and optimal management of blood pressure levels. Risk-adjusted mortality rates at 6 and 12 months decreased, respectively, from 9.8% to 7.4% (P=0.06) and from 13.4% to 10.1% (P= 0.06) for patients with ACS and from 22.8% to 15.2% (P < 0.001) and from 32.8% to 22.4% (P= 0.005) for patients with CHF. Quality improvement programs that feature multifaceted interventions across the continuum of care can change clinical culture, optimise care and improve clinical outcomes.

Are diagnosis specific outcome indicators based on administrative data useful in assessing quality of hospital care?

Background: Hospital performance reports based on administrative data should distinguish differences in quality of care between hospitals from case mix related variation and random error effects. A study was undertaken to determine which of 12 diagnosis-outcome indicators measured across all hospitals in one state had significant risk adjusted systematic ( or special cause) variation (SV) suggesting differences in quality of care. For those that did, we determined whether SV persists within hospital peer groups, whether indicator results correlate at the individual hospital level, and how many adverse outcomes would be avoided if all hospitals achieved indicator values equal to the best performing 20% of hospitals. Methods: All patients admitted during a 12 month period to 180 acute care hospitals in Queensland, Australia with heart failure (n = 5745), acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) ( n = 3427), or stroke ( n = 2955) were entered into the study. Outcomes comprised in-hospital deaths, long hospital stays, and 30 day readmissions. Regression models produced standardised, risk adjusted diagnosis specific outcome event ratios for each hospital. Systematic and random variation in ratio distributions for each indicator were then apportioned using hierarchical statistical models. Results: Only five of 12 (42%) diagnosis-outcome indicators showed significant SV across all hospitals ( long stays and same diagnosis readmissions for heart failure; in-hospital deaths and same diagnosis readmissions for AMI; and in-hospital deaths for stroke). Significant SV was only seen for two indicators within hospital peer groups ( same diagnosis readmissions for heart failure in tertiary hospitals and inhospital mortality for AMI in community hospitals). Only two pairs of indicators showed significant correlation. If all hospitals emulated the best performers, at least 20% of AMI and stroke deaths, heart failure long stays, and heart failure and AMI readmissions could be avoided. Conclusions: Diagnosis-outcome indicators based on administrative data require validation as markers of significant risk adjusted SV. Validated indicators allow quantification of realisable outcome benefits if all hospitals achieved best performer levels. The overall level of quality of care within single institutions cannot be inferred from the results of one or a few indicators.

Comparing long-term placements for young children in care: Does type of placement really matter?

This paper presents findings from the third phase of a longitudinal study, entitled Care Pathways and Outcomes, which has been tracking the placements and measuring outcomes for a population of children (n = 374) who were under the age of five and in care in Northern Ireland on the 31st March 2000. It explores how a sub-sample of these children at age nine to 14 years old were getting on in the placements provided for them, in comparative terms across five placement types: adoption; foster care; kinship foster care (with relatives); on Residence Order; and living with birth parents. This specifically focused on the development of attachment and self-concept from the perspective of the children, and behavioural and emotional function, and parenting stress, from the perspective of parents and carers. Findings showed no significant placement effect from the perspective of children, and a statistically weak, but descriptively compelling, effect from the perspective of parents. The findings challenge the notion of adoption as the gold standard in long-term placements, specifically from the perspective of children in terms of their parent/carer attachments and self-concept, and highlight what appears to be the central importance of placement longevity for delivering positive longer-term outcomes for these children, irrespective of placement type.