Objective: To test the clinical equivalence and resource consequences of day care with inpatient care for active rheumatoid arthritis.

The aims of this pilot study, which compares day patient with inpatient care for management of active RA were (i) to test the feasibility of a trial protocol design including the method of randomization and the practicality of data collection, and (ii) to obtain preliminary information on economic cost and clinical outcome of these two methods of management. Twenty consecutive patients requiring admission for management of active RA were randomized to receive either day patient or inpatient care. All hospital, transport, community and indirect costs incurred over a 6-month period from recruitment were collected for each patient. Disease activity and clinical outcome were assessed using the Ritchie articular index, ESR, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Functional Independence Measure and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The trial protocol was found to be feasible and no patient allocated to the day patient group requested or required to be transferred to inpatient care. Day care was significantly cheaper than inpatient care despite higher transport costs; the total cost of treating 10 day patients was UK 10,272 pounds compared with 14,528 pounds for 10 inpatients. Clinical outcome was comparable in both groups for all parameters studied and there was no obvious detrimental effect on patients receiving day care. This pilot study demonstrates that day care is feasible and acceptable to patients with active RA. The preliminary data suggest that day care is substantially cheaper than inpatient care and does not apparently compromise clinical outcome.

Rationing by delay was not detrimental to either mental or physical health and patients in both arms of the study showed significant and similar improvement in health by 15 months. Expenditure of resources on waiting times without regard to clinical outcomes is likely to be wasteful and additional resources should be directed at achieving the greatest clinical benefit. More research into effective methods of controlling demand and better identification of those who would benefit from access to specialist care is needed.

There is considerable variation in the services used by patients with schizophrenia and in the costs incurred in service provision. When planning services it is therefore important that detailed information on the patient population is available if resources are to be allocated cost-effectively.

No abstract