BACKGROUND: Acute home treatment services, providing short-term intensive input as an alternative to in-patient admission, have been recommended by the Department of Health as part of a spectrum of care. The lack of research evidence for such services is in contrast to acute day hospital care which has been better researched, but not widely adopted. This paper compares the patients treated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of day hospital vs. in-patient care with patients treated several years later in the home treatment service which developed from the original acute day hospital. METHOD: In the original RCT, patients were randomised at the point of admission to day hospital or in-patient care. The home treatment sample consisted of a consecutive series of admissions. Severity of illness was assessed at admission using the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS). Both samples were followed up for 12 months to monitor service use and costs. RESULTS:Symptom severity among the home treatment sample (n = 71) was greater than the day hospital sample (n = 94) (mean CPRS score 31.6 vs. 25.5, p < 0.0001). This difference remained significant following adjustment for other socio-demographic and illness variables. Secondary care costs for the home treatment sample (including in-patient, home treatment and out-patient costs) were intermediate between the costs for the day hospital and in-patient samples from the RCT, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the remit of an acute day hospital to provide 24-h care and a choice of treatment location is associated with an increase in the severity of illness treated. The impact on costs is unclear and the total cost of the new service may not be significantly less than in-patient care. The results need to be interpreted with caution because of differences in recruitment methods.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Acute home treatment services, providing short-term intensive input as an alternative to in-patient admission, have been recommended by the Department of Health as part of a spectrum of care. The lack of research evidence for such services is in contrast to acute day hospital care which has been better researched, but not widely adopted. This paper compares the patients treated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of day hospital vs. in-patient care with patients treated several years later in the home treatment service which developed from the original acute day hospital. METHOD: In the original RCT, patients were randomised at the point of admission to day hospital or in-patient care. The home treatment sample consisted of a consecutive series of admissions. Severity of illness was assessed at admission using the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS). Both samples were followed up for 12 months to monitor service use and costs. RESULTS: Symptom severity among the home treatment sample (n = 71) was greater than the day hospital sample (n = 94) (mean CPRS score 31.6 vs. 25.5, p < 0.0001). This difference remained significant following adjustment for other socio-demographic and illness variables. Secondary care costs for the home treatment sample (including in-patient, home treatment and out-patient costs) were intermediate between the costs for the day hospital and in-patient samples from the RCT, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the remit of an acute day hospital to provide 24-h care and a choice of treatment location is associated with an increase in the severity of illness treated. The impact on costs is unclear and the total cost of the new service may not be significantly less than in-patient care. The results need to be interpreted with caution because of differences in recruitment methods.
Authors: Camilla Strøm; Jakob S Stefansson; Maria Louise Fabritius; Lars S Rasmussen; Thomas A Schmidt; Janus C Jakobsen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-13