Cost-effectiveness of England’s national ‘Safe At Home’ scheme for reducing hospital admissions for unintentional injury in children aged under 5

Abstract

BackgroundInjuries in children aged under 5 years most commonly occur in the home and disproportionately affect those living in the most disadvantaged communities. The ‘Safe at Home’ (SAH) national home safety equipment scheme, which ran in England between 2009 and 2011, has been shown to reduce injury-related hospital admissions, but there is little evidence of cost-effectiveness.Materials and methodsCost-effectiveness analysis from a health and local government perspective. Measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per hospital admission averted (ICER) and cost-offset ratio (COR), comparing SAH expenditure to savings in admission expenditure. The study period was split into three periods: T1 (years 0–2, implementation); T2 (years 3–4) and T3 (years 5–6). Analyses were conducted for T2 versus T1 and T3 versus T1.ResultsTotal cost of SAH was £9 518 066. 202 223 hospital admissions in the children occurred during T1-3, costing £3 320 000. Comparing T3 to T1 SAH reduced admission expenditure by £924 per month per local authority and monthly admission rates by 0.5 per local authority per month compared with control areas. ICER per admission averted was £4209 for T3 versus T1, with a COR of £0.29, suggesting that 29p was returned in savings on admission expenditure for every pound spent on SAH.ConclusionSAH was effective at reducing hospital admissions due to injury and did result in some cost recovery when taking into admissions only. Further analysis of its cost-effectiveness, including emergency healthcare, primary care attendances and wider societal costs, is likely to improve the return on investment further.

Preference of primary care patients for home-based healthcare and support services: a discrete choice experiment in China

“…The notion of "hospital at home" was initially pioneered in the United Kingdom and subsequently adopted by the United States (9), Canada (10), Japan (11), and Australia (12). In the United States and the Netherlands, both hospitals and nursing homes offer hospital at home programs, serving as cost-effective alternatives to hospital-based acute and sub-acute care options (13)(14)(15). HHSS demonstrate superior accessibility, convenience, and efficiency compared to hospital-based services (5,16), particularly among older patients (17).…”