OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led, home-based, case-management intervention (NHI) after hospital discharge in addition to usual care. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial after being discharged home with 24 weeks of follow-up. Patients discharged to their home from a general hospital were randomly assigned to NHI or usual care. Clinical outcomes were frequency of emergency readmissions, quality of life, and psychological functioning. Direct costs were measured by means of cost diaries kept by the patients and information obtained from the patients' pharmacists. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were randomized, 61 patients dropped out, and 26 had incomplete data, leaving a total of 121 patients included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in emergency readmissions, quality of life, and psychological functioning. There was a substantial difference in total costs between the NHI group and the control group (4286 Euro; 95% CI, -41; 8026), but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: NHI is not a cost-effective intervention. We do not recommend the implementation of this intervention in populations that do not consist of severely vulnerable and complex patients. Future studies should include complexity assessment on inclusion and evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention in patients with more complex profiles.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led, home-based, case-management intervention (NHI) after hospital discharge in addition to usual care. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial after being discharged home with 24 weeks of follow-up. Patients discharged to their home from a general hospital were randomly assigned to NHI or usual care. Clinical outcomes were frequency of emergency readmissions, quality of life, and psychological functioning. Direct costs were measured by means of cost diaries kept by the patients and information obtained from the patients' pharmacists. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were randomized, 61 patients dropped out, and 26 had incomplete data, leaving a total of 121 patients included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in emergency readmissions, quality of life, and psychological functioning. There was a substantial difference in total costs between the NHI group and the control group (4286 Euro; 95% CI, -41; 8026), but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: NHI is not a cost-effective intervention. We do not recommend the implementation of this intervention in populations that do not consist of severely vulnerable and complex patients. Future studies should include complexity assessment on inclusion and evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention in patients with more complex profiles.
Authors: Jacqueline J Suijker; Janet L MacNeil-Vroomen; Marjon van Rijn; Bianca M Buurman; Sophia E de Rooij; Eric P Moll van Charante; Judith E Bosmans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicholas Graves; Mary Courtney; Helen Edwards; Anne Chang; Anthony Parker; Kathleen Finlayson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 3.240