OBJECTIVE: After analysing the effectiveness in the reduction in the incidence of functional impairment and a higher probability of returning home between elderly patients hospitalised due to an acute medical illness cared for in acute geriatric units (AGU) compared to conventional care units, we propose to assess the efficiency of this care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was made of controlled studies (randomised, no randomised and case-control) that compared care in UGA with care in conventional hospital units of patients of 65 years and over with an acute medical illness. Studies on administrative data bases, those that evaluated care of a single disease, and those that assessed units with care in the acute and sub-acute phase were excluded. A literature review was performed on articles published up to 31st of August 2008 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and references of systematic reviews and reviewed articles. The selection of the studies and the extraction of data on the hospital stay and care costs was made independently by two different researchers. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included, of which 5 were randomised, 4 were non-randomised, and 2 case control, all of them providing data on hospital stay, with 7 of them providing data on hospital costs (4 clinical trials, 2 non-randomised and 1 case-control). The overall analysis of all the studies showed that those admitted to UGA had a statistically significant reduction in hospital length of stay compared to the elderly hospitalised in conventional units (mean difference -1.01 days; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.36) and hospital care costs (mean difference of -330 US dollars; 95% CI, -540 to -120). CONCLUSIONS: Care in AGU is more efficient than that provided in conventional units, since, as well as achieving a reduction in the incidence of functional impairment at discharge and increasing the probability of returning home, they reduce mean hospital stay and the hospital care costs.
OBJECTIVE: After analysing the effectiveness in the reduction in the incidence of functional impairment and a higher probability of returning home between elderly patients hospitalised due to an acute medical illness cared for in acute geriatric units (AGU) compared to conventional care units, we propose to assess the efficiency of this care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was made of controlled studies (randomised, no randomised and case-control) that compared care in UGA with care in conventional hospital units of patients of 65 years and over with an acute medical illness. Studies on administrative data bases, those that evaluated care of a single disease, and those that assessed units with care in the acute and sub-acute phase were excluded. A literature review was performed on articles published up to 31st of August 2008 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and references of systematic reviews and reviewed articles. The selection of the studies and the extraction of data on the hospital stay and care costs was made independently by two different researchers. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included, of which 5 were randomised, 4 were non-randomised, and 2 case control, all of them providing data on hospital stay, with 7 of them providing data on hospital costs (4 clinical trials, 2 non-randomised and 1 case-control). The overall analysis of all the studies showed that those admitted to UGA had a statistically significant reduction in hospital length of stay compared to the elderly hospitalised in conventional units (mean difference -1.01 days; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.36) and hospital care costs (mean difference of -330 US dollars; 95% CI, -540 to -120). CONCLUSIONS: Care in AGU is more efficient than that provided in conventional units, since, as well as achieving a reduction in the incidence of functional impairment at discharge and increasing the probability of returning home, they reduce mean hospital stay and the hospital care costs.
Authors: David José Coca; Sandra Milena Castelblanco; Diego Andrés Chavarro-Carvajal; Luis Carlos Venegas-Sanabria Journal: Biomedica Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 0.935