Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sahota, Opinder; Pulikottil-Jacob, Ruth; Marshall, Fiona; Montgomery, Alan; Tan, Wei; Sach, Tracey; Logan, Pip; Kendrick, Denise; Watson, Alison; Walker, Maria; Waring, Justin (2016)
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Journal: Age and Ageing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: care transition, cost-effectiveness, community rehabilitation, in-reach, readmission, transition coach, hospital length of stay, older people, Research Paper, Editor's Choice
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. \ud \ud Design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. \ud \ud Settings: Large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. \ud \ud Subjects: Frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. \ud \ud 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. \ud \ud 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). \ud \ud 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. \ud \ud Trial registration: ISRCTN 94393315, 25th April 2013