BMJ 1999;319:1542-1546 ( 11 December )

General Practice

Randomised controlled trial of effectiveness of Leicester hospital at home scheme compared with hospital care

Andrew Wilson, senior lecturer, a Hilda Parker, research fellow, a Alison Wynn, research associate, a Carol Jagger, senior lecturer, b Nicky Spiers, fellow in health services research, b Jeremy Jones, lecturer in health economics, c Gillian Parker, professor. c

a Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, b Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP, c Nuffield Community Care Studies Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester

Correspondence to: A Wilson aw7{at}le.ac.uk

Objective: To compare effectiveness of patient care in hospital at home scheme with hospital care.
Design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
Setting: Leicester hospital at home scheme and the city's three acute hospitals.
Participants: 199 consecutive patients referred to hospital at home by their general practitioner and assessed as being suitable for admission. Six of 102 patients randomised to hospital at home refused admission, as did 23 of 97 allocated to hospital.
Intervention: Hospital at home or hospital inpatient care.
Main outcome measures: Mortality and change in health status (Barthel index, sickness impact profile 68, EuroQol, Philadelphia geriatric morale scale) assessed at 2 weeks and 3 months after randomisation. The main process measures were service inputs, discharge destination, readmission rates, length of initial stay, and total days of care.
Results: Hospital at home group and hospital group showed no significant differences in health status (median scores on sickness impact profile 68 were 29 and 30 respectively at 2 weeks, and 24 and 26 at 3 months) or in dependency (Barthel scores 15 and 14 at 2 weeks and 16 for both groups at 3 months). At 3 months' follow up, 26 (25%) of hospital at home group had died compared with 30 (31%) of hospital group (relative risk 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.28)). Hospital at home group required fewer days of treatment than hospital group, both in terms of initial stay (median 8 days v 14.5 days, P=0.026) and total days of care at 3 months (median 9 days v 16 days, P=0.031).
Conclusions: Hospital at home scheme delivered care as effectively as hospital, with no clinically important differences in health status. Hospital at home resulted in significantly shorter lengths of stay, which did not lead to a higher rate of subsequent admission.


Key messages

  • The effectiveness of hospital at home schemes for avoiding hospital admission has not been tested in a trial

  • In this study patients suitable for hospital at home care were randomised to hospital at home or hospital care and followed up for three months

  • There were no clinically or statistically significant differences in outcome as measured by the sickness impact profile 68, Barthel index, Philadelphia geriatric morale scale, and EuroQol

  • Length of stay in care and total days of care were about 45% less for patients randomised to hospital at home

  • For patients who meet the admission criteria, hospital at home schemes can provide an effective and acceptable alternative to hospital admission




© BMJ 1999
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Evaluation of hospital at home scheme
Hilda Parker and Gideon A Caplan
BMJ 2000 320: 1077. [Extract] [Full Text]

Hospital at home scheme is acceptable alternative to hospital care and is cost effective
BMJ 1999 319: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Shepperd, S. MSc DPhil, Doll, H. MSc DPhil, Angus, R. M. MBChB, Clarke, M. J. MA DPhil, Iliffe, S. BSc MBBS, Kalra, L. MD PhD, Ricauda, N. A. MD, Tibaldi, V. MD PhD, Wilson, A. D. MD (2009). Avoiding hospital admission through provision of hospital care at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. CMAJ 180: 175-182 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Caplan, G. A., Coconis, J., Board, N., Sayers, A., Woods, J. (2006). Does home treatment affect delirium? A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation of elderly and care at home or usual treatment (The REACH-OUT trial). Age Ageing 35: 53-60 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Leff, B., Burton, L., Mader, S. L., Naughton, B., Burl, J., Inouye, S. K., Greenough, W. B. III, Guido, S., Langston, C., Frick, K. D., Steinwachs, D., Burton, J. R. (2005). Hospital at Home: Feasibility and Outcomes of a Program To Provide Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Older Patients. ANN INTERN MED 143: 798-808 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Ram, F. S F, Wedzicha, J. A, Wright, J., Greenstone, M. (2004). Hospital at home for patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review of evidence. BMJ 329: 315- [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Siggeirsdottir, K, Jonsson, B Y, Jonsson, H Jr, Iwarsson, S (2002). The timed 'Up & Go' is dependent on chair type. Clin Rehabil 16: 609-616 [Abstract]  
  • Hardy, C, Whitwell, D, Sarsfield, B, Maimaris, C (2001). Admission avoidance and early discharge of acute hospital admissions: an accident and emergency based scheme. Emerg. Med. J. 18: 435-440 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Dubois, A., Santos-Eggimann, B. (2001). Evaluation of Patients' Satisfaction with Hospital-At-Home Care. Eval Health Prof 24: 84-98 [Abstract]  
  • Grande, G E, Todd, C J, Barclay, S I G, Farquhar, M C (2000). A randomized controlled trial of a hospital at home service for the terminally ill. Palliat Med 14: 375-385 [Abstract]  
  • Parker, H., Caplan, G. A (2000). Evaluation of hospital at home scheme. BMJ 320: 1077a-1077 [Full text]  
  • Naftalin, N J, Habiba, M A (2000). Keeping patients out of hospital. BMJ 320: 262-263 [Full text]  
  • Jones, J., Wilson, A., Parker, H., Wynn, A., Jagger, C., Spiers, N., Parker, G. (1999). Economic evaluation of hospital at home versus hospital care: cost minimisation analysis of data from randomised controlled trial. BMJ 319: 1547-1550 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

GPs abusers or abused?
Paul N Moore
bmj.com, 14 Dec 1999 [Full text]
Obtaining evidence: A job worth doing?
Hilda Parker
bmj.com, 13 Dec 1999 [Full text]
Recruitment and randomisation to Leicester hospital at home scheme.
Mark Cotton
bmj.com, 14 Dec 1999 [Full text]
Re: GPs abusers or abused?
Andrew Wilson
bmj.com, 18 Dec 1999 [Full text]
Re: Recruitment and randomisation to Leicester hospital at home scheme.
Andrew Wilson
bmj.com, 18 Dec 1999 [Full text]
Baseline differences were not fully taken into account
Flora Hodman, et al.
bmj.com, 7 Jan 2000 [Full text]
Doc2Doc Vacancy
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ