Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in hospital and hospital-at-home settings: a mixed-methods study

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • معلومة اضافية
    • بيانات النشر:
      National Institute for Health Research
    • الموضوع:
      2019
    • Collection:
      Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
    • نبذة مختصرة :
      Background: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary process that determines a frail older person’s medical, functional, psychological and social capability to ensure that they have a co-ordinated plan for treatment and follow-up. Objectives: To improve our understanding of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the CGA across hospital and hospital-at-home settings. Methods: We used a variety of methods. We updated a Cochrane review of randomised trials of the CGA in hospital for older people aged ≥ 65 years, conducted a national survey of community CGA, analysed data from three health boards using propensity score matching (PSM) and regression analysis, conducted a qualitative study and used a modified Delphi method. Results: We included 29 trials recruiting 13,766 participants in the Cochrane review of the CGA. Older people admitted to hospital who receive the CGA are more likely to be living at home at 3–12 months’ follow-up [relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.10] (high certainty). The probability that the CGA would be cost-effective at a £20,000 ceiling ratio for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs) and LYs living at home was 0.50, 0.89, and 0.47, respectively (low-certainty evidence). After PSM and regression analysis comparing CGA hospital with CGA hospital at home, we found that the health-care cost (from admission to 6 months after discharge) in site 1 was lower in hospital at home (ratio of means 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.89), in site 2 there was little difference (ratio of means 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09) and in site 3 it was higher (ratio of means 1.15, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.33). Six months after discharge (excluding the index admission), the ratio of means cost in site 1 was 1.27 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.41), in site 2 was 1.09 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.24) and in site 3 was 1.70 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.07). At 6 months’ follow-up (excluding the index admission), there may be an increased risk of mortality (adjusted) in the three ...
    • ISSN:
      2050-4349
      2050-4357
    • Relation:
      https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07100; https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349; https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357; https://doaj.org/article/ed460795419d4eb5b78315da91d07895
    • الرقم المعرف:
      10.3310/hsdr07100
    • الرقم المعرف:
      edsbas.890E2DE9