| Literature DB >> 23587460 |
Tracy A Comans1, Nancye M Peel, Leonard C Gray, Paul A Scuffham.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A key goal for services treating older persons is improving Quality of Life (QoL). This study aimed to 1) determine the QoL and utility (i.e. satisfaction with own quality of life) for participants of a discharge program for older people following an extended hospital episode of care and 2) examine the impact of the intensity of this program on utility gains over time.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23587460 PMCID: PMC3637078 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-58
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Descriptive characteristics of participants
| Age | Mean (SD) | 78.99 (8.80) |
| Gender | Females | 231 (66%) |
| Living arrangements | Lives alone | 171 (49%) |
| Lives with spouse | 131 (37%) | |
| Lives with others | 49 (14%) | |
| Length of stay (days) in hospital prior to TCP | Median (IQR) | 27 (16–45) |
| Length of stay (days) in TCP | Median (IQR) | 54 (37–73) |
| No. of medications at TCP admission | ≤ 3 | 22 (6%) |
| 4–5 | 32 (9%) | |
| 6–8 | 91 (26%) | |
| 9–12 | 123 (35%) | |
| 13–16 | 71 (20%) | |
| ≥ 17 | 8 (2%) | |
| Missing data | 4 (1%) | |
| No. of co-morbidities at TCP admission | Mean (SD) | 6.02 (3.06) |
| Frailty Index | Mean (SD) | 0.31 (0.10) |
TCP = transition care program.
Figure 1Change over time of the domains of the EQ-5D.
Figure 2Change over time of the domains of the ICECAP-O. Note: Please refer to the ICECAP-O scale for clarification of the levels displayed [14].
Utility scores over the six month follow up
| N | 349 | 317 | 302 | 314 | | 346 | 346 |
| EQ-5D | 0.55 (0.20) | 0.70 (0.20) | 0.60 (0.25) | 0.60 (0.28) | 0.006 (−.040, 0.053) | 0.28 (0.10) | 0.0021 (0.0469) |
| N | 343 | 318 | 311 | 312 | | 339 | 339 |
| ICECAP-O | 0.75 (0.16) | 0.83 (0.16) | 0.83 (0.23) | 0.84 (0.25) | 0.38 (0.08) | 0.0087 (0.0315) |
Notes: TCP = transition care program; GEE = generalized estimating equation QALY = quality adjusted life year; Bold = significant result.
* calculated as area under the curve adjusted from baseline.
Service characteristics
| Case Management | 100% | 19.86 (12.44) |
| Physiotherapy | 92% | 9.41 (8.76) |
| Occupational Therapy | 88% | 11.28 (11.70) |
| Personal Care | 87% | 29.04 (29.20) |
| Nursing | 76% | 8.88 (11.71) |
| Home Care | 37% | 16.92 (19.74) |
| Allied Health Assistant | 37% | 7.71 (8.36) |
| Social Work | 35% | 4.30 (5.29) |
| Dietetics | 33% | 3.74 (3.65) |
| Podiatry | 29% | 1.45 (3.13) |
| Total Direct Contact Time** | 100% | 66.23 (52.74) |
Notes: *Represents the service time in hours per person for the duration of the transition care episode of care (average seven weeks). Expected value can be obtained by multiplying the service time by the percentage of patients who received that service.
**Direct Contact time does not include Case Management time and represents the average per person in the study.
Results of the regression analyses
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total direct contact time | ||||
| Case management | 0.19 (−0.23, 0.6) | 0.37 | 0.16 (−0.12, 0.43) | 0.25 |
| Nursing | 0.16 (−0.32, 0.62) | 0.52 | −0.07 (−0.38, 0.25) | 0.68 |
| Physiotherapy | ||||
| Occupational Therapy | 0.37 (−0.08, 0.8) | 0.10 | ||
| Personal Care Worker | ||||
| Home Care Worker | 0.15 (−0.09, 0.38) | 0.22 | ||
| Dietician | −1.1 (−2.94, 0.76) | 0.25 | −1.2 (−2.43, 0.03) | 0.06 |
| Podiatry | 0.28 (−2.6, 3.15) | 0.85 | 0.5 (−1.42, 2.42) | 0.61 |
| Social Work | −0.39 (−1.74, 0.98) | 0.58 | −0.4 (−1.31, 0.51) | 0.39 |
| Allied Health Assistant | 0.24 (−0.57, 1.04) | 0.56 | 0.36 (−0.18, 0.89) | 0.19 |
Notes: Service time represents the time in hours received by a patient of each service type. All co-efficients are x10-3 therefore co-efficients represent potential gain in QALYs per 1000 hours of input. Statistically significant results appear in bold.