HomePublications

The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. / Sahota, Opinder; Pulikottil-Jacob, Ruth; Marshall, Fiona; Montgomery, Alan; Tan, Wei; Sach, Tracey; Logan, Pip; Kendrick, Denise; Watson, Alison; Walker, Maria; Waring, Justin.

In: Age and Ageing, Vol. 46, No. 1, 01.2017, p. 26-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Sahota, Opinder ; Pulikottil-Jacob, Ruth ; Marshall, Fiona ; Montgomery, Alan ; Tan, Wei ; Sach, Tracey ; Logan, Pip ; Kendrick, Denise ; Watson, Alison ; Walker, Maria ; Waring, Justin. / The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. In: Age and Ageing. 2017 ; Vol. 46, No. 1. pp. 26-32.

Bibtex- Download

@article{0d2b1c69c6b64f24bd101936e80b970d,
title = "The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency",
abstract = "Objective: to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service. Design: pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. Settings: large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Subjects: frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. Measurements: Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: a total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934). Conclusion: the CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation.",
keywords = "older people, care transition, transition coach, community rehabilitation , in-reach, readmission, hospital length of stay, cost-effectiveness",
author = "Opinder Sahota and Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob and Fiona Marshall and Alan Montgomery and Wei Tan and Tracey Sach and Pip Logan and Denise Kendrick and Alison Watson and Maria Walker and Justin Waring",
note = " {\textcopyright} The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited.",
year = "2017",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1093/ageing/afw149",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "26--32",
journal = "Age and Ageing",
issn = "0002-0729",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency

AU - Sahota, Opinder

AU - Pulikottil-Jacob, Ruth

AU - Marshall, Fiona

AU - Montgomery, Alan

AU - Tan, Wei

AU - Sach, Tracey

AU - Logan, Pip

AU - Kendrick, Denise

AU - Watson, Alison

AU - Walker, Maria

AU - Waring, Justin

N1 - © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited.

PY - 2017/1

Y1 - 2017/1

N2 - Objective: to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service. Design: pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. Settings: large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Subjects: frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. Measurements: Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: a total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934). Conclusion: the CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation.

AB - Objective: to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service. Design: pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. Settings: large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Subjects: frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. Measurements: Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: a total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934). Conclusion: the CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation.

KW - older people

KW - care transition

KW - transition coach

KW - community rehabilitation

KW - in-reach

KW - readmission

KW - hospital length of stay

KW - cost-effectiveness

U2 - 10.1093/ageing/afw149

DO - 10.1093/ageing/afw149

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 26

EP - 32

JO - Age and Ageing

JF - Age and Ageing

SN - 0002-0729

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 93862694