Kristina Kast1, Carl-Philipp Wachter2, Oliver Schöffski2, Martina Rimmele3. 1. Chair of Health Care Management, Law and Economics Faculty of the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403, Nuremberg, Germany. kristina.kast@fau.de. 2. Chair of Health Care Management, Law and Economics Faculty of the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403, Nuremberg, Germany. 3. Medical Faculty of the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Biomedicine of Aging, Kobergerstr. 60, 90408, Nuremberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The German hospital-to-home discharge management of geriatric patients has long been criticized. The implementation of the American Transitional Care Model (TCM) could help to reduce readmissions and costs. The objective of this review was to check the scientific evidence of the cost-effectiveness of the TCM. METHODS: A systematic literature search in six databases for the time period of 26 years was conducted. The studies had to meet all pre-defined inclusion criteria. The data extraction is based on a criteria chart from literature. The methodological quality was assessed using the tools of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute as well as the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. The results transferability to German health care system was explained based on the criteria from the literature. RESULTS: Three American studies met all criteria. They showed partial cost analyses but no full economic analyses. It could be assumed that the economic effect of the TCM changes over time. The costs of a care coordinator could not be determined because few detailed information was reported. The TCM may have negative consequences for hospitals. The results are not transferable to Germany. CONCLUSION: There is no scientific evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the defined TCM. The optimal TCM duration still needs to be clarified. A detailed overview with units and prices and an additional consideration of the hospital perspective could help to make the information more transparent when deciding about the TCM implementation. A full economic analysis under German conditions or for similar European countries is necessary.
BACKGROUND: The German hospital-to-home discharge management of geriatric patients has long been criticized. The implementation of the American Transitional Care Model (TCM) could help to reduce readmissions and costs. The objective of this review was to check the scientific evidence of the cost-effectiveness of the TCM. METHODS: A systematic literature search in six databases for the time period of 26 years was conducted. The studies had to meet all pre-defined inclusion criteria. The data extraction is based on a criteria chart from literature. The methodological quality was assessed using the tools of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute as well as the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. The results transferability to German health care system was explained based on the criteria from the literature. RESULTS: Three American studies met all criteria. They showed partial cost analyses but no full economic analyses. It could be assumed that the economic effect of the TCM changes over time. The costs of a care coordinator could not be determined because few detailed information was reported. The TCM may have negative consequences for hospitals. The results are not transferable to Germany. CONCLUSION: There is no scientific evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the defined TCM. The optimal TCM duration still needs to be clarified. A detailed overview with units and prices and an additional consideration of the hospital perspective could help to make the information more transparent when deciding about the TCM implementation. A full economic analysis under German conditions or for similar European countries is necessary.
Authors: Ghislaine A P G van Mastrigt; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Jacobus J C Arts; Pieter H Broos; Jos Kleijnen; Silvia M A A Evers; Marian H J M Majoie Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 2.217