Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorExley, J
dc.contributor.authorAbel, GA
dc.contributor.authorFernandez, JL
dc.contributor.authorPitchforth, E
dc.contributor.authorMendonca, S
dc.contributor.authorYang, M
dc.contributor.authorRoland, M
dc.contributor.authorMcGuire, A
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-29T11:48:54Z
dc.date.issued2019-03-03
dc.description.abstractObjectives To estimate the impact on hospital utilisation and costs of a multi-faceted primary care intervention for older people identified as being at risk of avoidable hospitalisation. Design Observational study: controlled time series analysis and estimation of costs and cost consequences of the Programme. General practitioner (GP)'s practice level data were analysed from 2009 to 2016 (intervention operated from 2012 to 2016). Mixed-effect Poisson regression models of hospital utilisation included comparisons with control practices and background trends in addition to within-practice comparisons. Cost estimation used standard tariff values. Setting 94 practices in Southwark and Lambeth and 263 control practices from other parts of England. Main outcome measures Hospital utilisation: emergency department attendance, emergency admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory sensitive conditions, outpatient attendance, elective admission and length of stay. Results By the fourth year of the Programme, there were reductions in accident and emergency (A&E) attendance (rate ratio 0.944, 95% CI 0.913 to 0.976), outpatient attendances (rate ratio 0.938, 95% CI 0.902 to 0.975) and elective admissions (rate ratio 0.921, 95% CI 0.908 to 0.935) but there was no evidence of reduced emergency admissions. The costs of the Programme were £149 per resident aged 65 and above but savings in hospital costs were only £86 per resident aged 65 and above, equivalent to a net increase in health service expenditure of £64 per resident though the Programme was nearly cost neutral if set-up costs were excluded. Holistic assessments carried out by GPS and consequent Integrated Care Management (ICM) plans were associated with increases in elective activity and costs; £126 increase in outpatient attendance and £936 in elective admission costs per holistic assessment carried out, and £576 increase in outpatient and £5858 in elective admission costs per patient receiving ICM. Conclusions The Older People's Programme was not cost saving. Some aspects of the Programme were associated with increased costs of elective care, possibly through the identification of unmet need.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipGuy’s and St Thomas’ charityen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipRAND Europeen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 9 (3), article e024220en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024220
dc.identifier.grantnumberSTR 120201en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/39370
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.en_GB
dc.titleImpact of the Southwark and Lambeth Integrated Care Older People's Programme on hospital utilisation and costs: Controlled time series and cost-consequence analysisen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-10-29T11:48:54Z
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-11-29
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-03-03
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-10-29T11:46:48Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2019-10-29T11:48:59Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.depositExceptionpublishedGoldOA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.