LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

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.

Important!

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

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Tanajewski, Lukasz; Franklin, Matthew; Gkountouras, Georgios; Berdunov, Vladislav; Harwood, Rowan H.; Goldberg, Sarah E.; Bradshaw, Lucy; Gladman, John R.F.; Elliott, Rachel A. (2015)
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Journal: PLoS ONE
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Comparative Study, Research Article, Aged, Medicine, Hospitals, General, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Randomized Controlled Trial, Q, R, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Science, Dementia, Journal Article, Aged, 80 and over, Health Services for the Aged, Humans, Delirium

BACKGROUND: One in three hospital acute medical admissions is of an older person with cognitive impairment. Their outcomes are poor and the quality of their care in hospital has been criticised. A specialist unit to care for older people with delirium and dementia (the Medical and Mental Health Unit, MMHU) was developed and then tested in a randomised controlled trial where it delivered significantly higher quality of, and satisfaction with, care, but no significant benefits in terms of health status outcomes at three months.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of the MMHU for older people with delirium and dementia in general hospitals, compared with standard care.

METHODS: Six hundred participants aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified on admission as cognitively impaired, were randomised to the MMHU or to standard care on acute geriatric or general medical wards. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, at 3-month follow-up, was assessed in trial-based economic evaluation (599/600 participants, intervention: 309). Multiple imputation and complete-case sample analyses were employed to deal with missing QALY data (55%).

RESULTS: The total adjusted health and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months was £7714 and £7862 for MMHU and standard care groups, respectively (difference -£149 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -298, 4)). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.001 (95% CI: -0.006, 0.008). The probability that the intervention was dominant was 58%, and the probability that it was cost-saving with QALY loss was 39%. At £20,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 94%, falling to 59% when cost-saving QALY loss cases were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS: The MMHU was strongly cost-effective using usual criteria, although considerably less so when the less acceptable situation with QALY loss and cost savings were excluded. Nevertheless, this model of care is worthy of further evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01136148.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Boustani M, Baker M, Campbell N, et al. Impact and recognition of cognitive impairment among hospitalized elders. J Hosp Med 2010;5 (2):69-75
    • 2. Goldberg S, Whittamore K, Harwood R, et al. The prevalence of mental health problems amongst older adults admitted as an emergency to a general hospital. Age Ageing 2012;41(1):80-86
    • 3. Royal College of Psychiatrists. Who Cares Wins. Improving the outcome for older people admitted to the general hospital. Guidelines for the development of Liaison Mental Health Services for older people. Secondary Who Cares Wins. Improving the outcome for older people admitted to the general hospital. Guidelines for the development of Liaison Mental Health Services for older people. 2005. www.rcpsych.ac.uk/PDF/WhoCaresWIns.pdf.
    • 4. Department of Health. Living Well With Dementia: A National Dementia Strategy. Secondary Living Well With Dementia: A National Dementia Strategy. 2009. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/living-well-with-dementia-a-nationaldementia-strategy.
    • 5. Holmes J, Montaňa C, Powell G, et al. Liaison Mental Health Services for Older People: A Literature review, service mapping and in-depth evaluation of service models. Secondary Liaison Mental Health Services for Older People: A Literature review, service mapping and in-depth evaluation of service models 2010. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/100-final-report.pdf
    • 6. Harwood RH, Porock D, King N, et al. Development of a specialist medical and mental health unit for older people in an acute general hospital. Secondary Development of a specialist medical and mental health unit for older people in an acute general hospital 2010. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/mcop/documents/papers/issue5-mcopissn2044-4230.pdf.
    • 7. Harwood R, Goldberg S, Whittamore K, et al. Evaluation of a Medical and Mental Health Unit compared with standard care for older people whose emergency admission to an acute general hospital is complicated by concurrent 'confusion': a controlled clinical trial. Acronym: TEAM: Trial of an Elderly Acute care Medical and mental health unit. Trials 2011;12(1):123
    • 8. Goldberg SE, Bradshaw LE, Kearney FC, et al. Care in specialist medical and mental health unit compared with standard care for older people with cognitive impairment admitted to general hospital: randomised controlled trial (NIHR TEAM trial). BMJ 2013;347 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4132[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 9. Welsh TJ, Gordon AL, Gladman JR. Comprehensive geriatric assessment - a guide for the non-specialist. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2014;68(3):290-93 doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12313[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 10. Sampson EL, Blanchard MR, Jones L, et al. Dementia in the acute hospital: prospective cohort study of prevalence and mortality. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 2009;195(1):61-6 doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.055335[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 11. EuroQol Group:EuroQol. A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208
    • 12. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35(11):1095- 108
    • 13. National Institute for Clinical E. Guide to the Methods of Technology AppraisalNational Institute for Clinical Excellence: London, 2013.
    • 14. Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, et al. Measurement of health related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2005;9(10):1-93, iii-iv
    • 15. Cummings JL, Mega M, Gray K, et al. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology 1994;44:2308-14
    • 16. Wade DT, Collin CL. The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Dis Studies 1988;10:64-67
    • 17. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2012: University of Kent, Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2012.
    • 18. Franklin M, Berdunov V, Edmans J, et al. Identifying patient-level health and social care costs for older adults discharged from acute medical units in England. Age and ageing 2014;43(5):703-07 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu073[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 19. National Audit Office. The National Programme for IT in the NHS: an update on the delivery of detailed care records systems Secondary The National Programme for IT in the NHS: an update on the delivery of detailed care records systems 2011. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/npfit.aspx.
    • 20. NHS Careers. Agenda for change - pay rates. . 2011. http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-benefits/agenda-forchange-pay-rates/.
    • 21. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, et al. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials (Handbooks for Health Economic Evaluation). Oxford, 2007.
    • 22. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2005;187(2):106-08 doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.2.106[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 23. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Economics 2001;10:779-87
    • 24. Severens J, Brunenberg DM, Fenwick EL, et al. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23(12):1207-14 doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523120-00005[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 25. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J Risk Uncertainty 1994;9(2):115-33 doi: 10.1007/BF01064181[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 26. O'Brien BJ, Gertsen K, Willan AR, et al. Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Economics 2002;11(2):175-80 doi: 10.1002/hec.655[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 27. StataCorp LP. Stata data analysis and statistical Software. Special Edition Release 10.1 edition 2008
    • 28. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in medicine 2011;30(4):377-99 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 29. Knorr-Held L. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. J. L. Schafer, Chapman & Hall, London, 1997. No. of pages: xiv+430. Price: £39.95. ISBN 0-412-04061-1. Statistics in Medicine 2000;19(7):1006-08 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0258(20000415)19:7<1006::AID-SIM384>3.0.CO;2-T[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 30. Moons KGM, Donders RART, Stijnen T, et al. Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006;59(10):1092-101 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.009[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 31. Briggs A, Gray A. The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3(4):233-45
    • 32. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based costeffectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Economics 2005;14(5):487-96 doi: 10.1002/hec.944[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 33. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? Journal of Health Economics 2001;20(4):461-94 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167- 6296(01)00086-8[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 34. Trzepacz PT, Mittal D, Torres R, et al. Validation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2001;13(2):229-42
    • 35. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. 'Mini-mental state'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1975;12:189-98
    • 36. SCHNEIDER J, HALLAM A, ISLAM MK, et al. Formal and informal care for people with dementia: variations in costs over time. Ageing & Society 2003;23(03):303-26 doi: doi:10.1017/S0144686X02001149[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 37. Ellis G, Whitehead MA, Robinson D, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, 2011.
    • 38. Brazier JE, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, et al. Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res 1996;5(2):195-204 doi: 10.1007/BF00434741[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 39. Holland R, Smith RD, Harvey I, et al. Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Economics 2004;13(8):793-805 doi: 10.1002/hec.858[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 40. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: A structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res 2005;14(7):1651- 68 doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 41. Wolfs CAG, Dirksen CD, Kessels A, et al. Performance of the EQ-5D and the EQ-5D+C in elderly patients with cognitive impairments. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2007;5:33-33 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-33[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 42. Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2005;9(10):1-93, iii-iv
    • 43. Mulhern B, Smith SC, Rowen D, et al. Improving the Measurement of QALYs in Dementia: Developing Patient- and Carer-Reported Health State Classification Systems Using Rasch Analysis. Value in Health;15(2):323-33 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.09.006[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 44. Mulhern B, Rowen D, Brazier J, et al. Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOLPROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOLPROXY for use in economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2013;17(5):v-xv, 1-140 doi: 10.3310/hta17050[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 45. Cooper R, Stafford M, Hardy R, et al. Physical capability and subsequent positive mental wellbeing in older people: findings from five HALCyon cohorts. Age 2014;36(1):445- 56 doi: 10.1007/s11357-013-9553-8[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 46. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2007;5:63-63 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 47. Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P. Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Social Science & Medicine 2008;67(7):1190-98 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.027[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 48. Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science & Medicine 2008;67(5):874-82 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 49. Coast J, Peters T, Natarajan L, et al. An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Qual Life Res 2008;17(7):967-76 doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9372-z[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 50. Al-Janabi H, N Flynn T, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res 2012;21(1):167-76 doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 51. Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. QALYs and Carers. Pharmacoeconomics 2011;29(12):1015-23 doi: 10.2165/11593940-000000000-00000[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 52. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Medical Decision Making 2011;31(3):458-68
    • 53. George J, Adamson J, Woodford H. Joint geriatric and psychiatric wards: a review of the literature. Age Ageing 2011;40(5):543-8 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afr080[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 54. Ellis G, Whitehead MA, Robinson D, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6553[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 55. Mason A, Weatherly H, Spilsbury K, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers. Health Technology Assessment 2007;11(15):1-157, iii
    • 56. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Secondary Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2006/05/15/ 2004.
    • 57. Department of H. The NHS outcomes framework 2014/15: Department of Health London, 2013.
    • 58. NORMAND C. Setting priorities in and for end-of-life care: challenges in the application of economic evaluation. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2012;7(04):431-39 doi: doi:10.1017/S1744133112000229[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 59. Al-Janabi H, McCaffrey N, Ratcliffe J. Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making. Patient 2013;6(4):235-39 doi: 10.1007/s40271-013- 0035-y[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
    • 60. McCaffrey N, Agar M, Harlum J, et al. Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space. PLoS ONE 2015;10(3):e0115544 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115544[published Online First: Epub Date]|.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.