Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up

BMC Medicine

Nicholas F Taylor²  Nora Shields⁴  Jennifer J Watts¹  Natasha Kareem Brusco³ 

[1] Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia;Allied Health Clinical Research Office, Eastern Health, Level 2, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Victoria 3128, Australia;Physiotherapy Services, Cabrini Health, 183 Wattletree Road, Malvern, Victoria 3144, Australia;Northern Health, Department of Allied Health, 1231 Plenty Rd, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia

关键词: Allied health;    Randomized controlled trial;    Economic evaluation;    Rehabilitation;   

Others  :  854867
DOI  :  10.1186/1741-7015-12-89

 received in 2014-01-09, accepted in 2014-04-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Providing additional Saturday rehabilitation can improve functional independence and health related quality of life at discharge and it may reduce patient length of stay, yet the economic implications are not known. The aim of this study was to determine from a health service perspective if the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday was cost effective compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone.

Methods

Cost utility and cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a multi-center, single-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30-day follow up after discharge. Participants were adults admitted for inpatient rehabilitation in two publicly funded metropolitan rehabilitation facilities. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus an additional rehabilitation service on Saturday. Incremental cost utility ratio was reported as cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost for a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in functional independence.

Results

996 patients (mean age 74 (standard deviation 13) years) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 496) or the control group (n = 500). Mean difference in cost of AUD$1,673 (95% confidence interval (CI) -271 to 3,618) was a saving in favor of the intervention group. The incremental cost utility ratio found a saving of AUD$41,825 (95% CI -2,817 to 74,620) per QALY gained for the intervention group. The ICER found a saving of AUD$16,003 (95% CI -3,074 to 87,361) in achieving a MCID in functional independence for the intervention group. If the willingness to pay per QALY gained or for a MCID in functional independence was zero dollars the probability of the intervention being cost effective was 96% and 95%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis removing Saturday penalty rates did not significantly alter the outcome.

Conclusions

From a health service perspective, the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday, compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone, is likely to be cost saving per QALY gained and for a MCID in functional independence.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry November 2009ACTRN12609000973213

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Brusco et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Keogh B: Should the NHS work at weekends as it does in the week? Yes. BMJ 2013, 346:f621.
• [2]Flynn P: Should the NHS work at weekends as it does in the week? No. BMJ 2013, 346:f622.
• [3]Bell CM, Redelmeier DA: Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:663-668.
• [4]Nocon A, Baldwin S: Trends in Rehabilitation Policy: A Review of the Literature. London, UK: King’s Fund Publishing; 1998.
• [5]Peiris C, Taylor N, Shields N: Extra physical therapy reduces patient length of stay and improves functional outcomes and quality of life in people with acute or subacute conditions: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 92:1490-1500.
• [6]Peiris C, Shields N, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Taylor NF: Additional Saturday rehabilitation improves functional independence and quality of life and reduces length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2013, 11:198. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Parker A, Lord R, Needham D: Increasing the dose of acute rehabilitation: is there a benefit? BMC Med 2013, 11:199. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Shaw KD, Taylor NF, Brusco NK: Physiotherapy services provided outside of business hours in Australian hospitals: a national survey. Physiother Res Int 2013, 18:115-123.
• [9]Brusco NK, Paratz J: The effect of additional physiotherapy to hospital inpatients outside of regular business hours: a systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract 2006, 22:291-307.
• [10]Brusco NK, Taylor NF, Watts JJ, Shields N: Economic evaluation of adult rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in a variety of settings. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014, 95:94-116.
• [11]Patel A, Knapp M, Evans A, Perez I, Kalra L: Training care givers of stroke patients: economic evaluation. BMJ 2004, 328:1102.
• [12]Cameron ID, Lyle DM, Quine S: The cost effectiveness of accelerated rehabilitation after proximal femoral fracture. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:1307-1313.
• [13]Taylor NF, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Shields N, Peiris C, Sullivan N, Kennedy G, Teo CK, Farley A, Lockwood K, Radia-George C: A study protocol of a randomised controlled trial incorporating a health economic analysis to investigate if additional allied health services for rehabilitation reduce length of stay without compromising patient outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:308. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) - explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013, 16:231-250.
• [15]Karges J, Smallfield S: A description of the outcomes, frequency, duration, and intensity of occupational, physical, and speech therapy in inpatient stroke rehabilitation. J Allied Health 2009, 38:1-10.
• [16]Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Semik P, Mallinson T: Patterns of therapy activities across length of stay and impairment levels: peering inside the "black box" of inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004, 85:1901-1908.
• [17]Heinemann AW, Hamilton B, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Granger C: Functional status and therapeutic intensity during inpatient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995, 74:315-326.
• [18]Brusco NK, Shields N, Taylor NF, Paratz J: A Saturday physiotherapy service may decrease length of stay in patients undergoing rehabilitation in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. Aust J Physiother 2007, 53:75-81.
• [19]Benbassat J, Taragin M: Hospital readmissions as a measure of quality of health care: advantages and limitations. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160:1074-1081.
• [20]Australian Government: Health services union — health professionals — Eastern Health workplace determination 2009. In BP2007/4095. Victoria, Australia: Fair Work: Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2010.
• [21]Australian Bureau of Statistics’ consumer price index [ http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats webcite] http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/C3BDC0F4907E1B2DCA25798F000D33DC?opendocument webcite
• [22]EuroQuol Group: EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [23]Sakthong P, Charoenvisuthiwongs R, Shabunthom R: A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6:71. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [25]Hamilton BB, Granger CV: Disability outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Phys Ther 1994, 74:494-503.
• [26]Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, Stark PC, Black-Schaffer RM, Stein J: Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006, 87:32-39.
• [27]Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR: Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009, 338:b2393.
• [28]Vickers AJ, Altman DG: Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 2001, 323:1123-1124.
• [29]Vickers AJ: Parametric versus non-parametric statistics in the analysis of randomized trials with non-normally distributed data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005, 5:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Mihaylova B, Briggs A, O'Hagan A, Thompson SG: Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ 2011, 20:897-916.
• [31]Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD: Non‒parametric methods for cost‒effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ 2010, 19:316-333.
• [32]IBM: IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0. Chicago, IL: IBM; 2012. 60606
• [33]Grubb D, Wells W: Employment regulation and patterns of work in EC countries. OECD Econ Stud 1993, 21:7-58.
• [34]Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J: Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:1245-1251.
• [35]Briggs A, Fenn P: Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998, 7:723-740.
• [36]Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D: NICE’s cost effectiveness threshold. BMJ 2007, 335:358.
• [37]George B, Harris A, Mitchell A: Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoecon 2001, 19:1103-1109.
• [38]Jorgensen HS, Kammersgaard LP, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Larsen KJ, Hubbe P, Olsen TS: Treatment and rehabilitation in an apoplexy unit increases the 5-year survival. Ugeskr Laeger 2000, 162:3450-3452.
• [39]Saxena S, Koh G, Ng T, Fong N, Yong D: Determinants of length of stay during post-stroke rehabilitation in community hospitals. Singapore Med J 2007, 48:400-407.
• [40]Haraden C, Resar R: Patient flow in hospitals: understanding and controlling it better. Front Health Serv Manage 2004, 20:3-15.
• [41]Fatovich D, Nagree Y, Sprivulis P: Access block causes emergency department overcrowding and ambulance diversion in Perth, Western Australia. Emerg Med J 2005, 22:351-354.