Performance of hospital-at-home after a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Objective: To compare the performance of an admission-avoidance hospital-at-home scheme one year after the end of a randomised trial with its performance during the trial.

Methods: Observational study of patients admitted to the scheme during a period of 12-19 months after the trial ended. In addition to routine data from service records, patients were interviewed at three days, two weeks and three months after admission, using the same instruments as used in the trial.

Results: All 78 patients admitted to hospital-at-home during the follow-up period were included, and compared with the 95 patients admitted during the trial. The referral rate to hospital-at-home was the same (11 per month) as during the trial. During the trial, patients were randomised to hospital-at-home or hospital, meaning that hospital-at-home worked at about double the trial volume in the post-trial period. Baseline characteristics showed no statistically significant differences except that post-trial patients were less cognitively impaired. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in survival at two weeks and three months, or in Barthel index, Sickness Impact Profile 68 and Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale. Length of stay in hospital-at-home was significantly shorter in the post-trial period (median of five days versus seven, P < 0.001), and more patients received a visit from their general practitioner during the period of admission (54% versus 38%, P = 0.04); otherwise there were no significant differences in process measures.

Conclusion: Apart from working at higher volume and achieving a shorter length of stay, performance of the hospital-at-home scheme a year after the trial ended was little different from that reported during the trial. This is an example of an observational study providing evidence to support the generalisability of trial findings.