Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1998 Jun 13;316(7147):1791-6.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7147.1791.

Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. II: cost minimisation analysis

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. II: cost minimisation analysis

S Shepperd et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the cost of providing hospital at home in place of some forms of inpatient hospital care.

Design: Cost minimisation study within a randomised controlled trial.

Setting: District general hospital and catchment area of neighbouring community trust.

Subjects: Patients recovering from hip replacement (n=86), knee replacement (n=86), and hysterectomy (n=238); elderly medical patients (n=96); and patients with chronic obstructive airways disease (n=32).

Interventions: Hospital at home or inpatient hospital care.

Main outcome measures: Cost of hospital at home scheme to health service, to general practitioners, and to patients and their families compared with hospital care.

Results: No difference was detected in total healthcare costs between hospital at home and hospital care for patients recovering from a hip or knee replacement, or elderly medical patients. Hospital at home significantly increased healthcare costs for patients recovering from a hysterectomy (ratio of geometrical means 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.29, P=0.009) and for those with chronic obstructive airways disease (Mann-Whitney U test, P=0.01). Hospital at home significantly increased general practitioners' costs for elderly medical patients (Mann-Whitney U test, P<0.01) and for those with chronic obstructive airways disease (P=0.02). Patient and carer expenditure made up a small proportion of total costs.

Conclusion: Hospital at home care did not reduce total healthcare costs for the conditions studied in this trial, and costs were significantly increased for patients recovering from a hysterectomy and those with chronic obstructive airways disease. There was some evidence that costs were shifted to primary care for elderly medical patients and those with chronic obstructive airways disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shepperd S, Iliffe S. Hospital at home compared with in-patient hospital care [review] In: Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw J, Oxman A, editors. The Cochrane library. Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software; 1998. (Updated quarterly.)
    1. Hughes SL, Cummings J, Weaver F, Manheim L, Braun B, Conrad K. A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of VA hospital-based home care for the terminally ill. Health Serv Res. 1992;26:801–817. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hollingsworth W, Todd C, Parker M, Roberts JA, Williams R. Cost analysis of early discharge after hip fracture. BMJ. 1993;307:903–906. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hensher M, Fulop N, Hood S, Ujah S. Does hospital at home make economic sense? Early discharge versus standard care for orthopaedic patients. J R Soc Med. 1996;89:548–551. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shepperd S, Harwood D, Jenkinson C, Gray A, Vessey M, Morgan P. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. I: three month follow up of health outcomes. BMJ. 1998;316:1786–1791. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms