Economic Evaluation of a General Hospital Unit for Older People with Delirium and Dementia (TEAM Randomised Controlled Trial)

Abstract

BackgroundOne in three hospital acute medical admissions is of an older person with cognitive impairment. Their outcomes are poor and the quality of their care in hospital has been criticised. A specialist unit to care for older people with delirium and dementia (the Medical and Mental Health Unit, MMHU) was developed and then tested in a randomised controlled trial where it delivered significantly higher quality of, and satisfaction with, care, but no significant benefits in terms of health status outcomes at three months.ObjectiveTo examine the cost-effectiveness of the MMHU for older people with delirium and dementia in general hospitals, compared with standard care.MethodsSix hundred participants aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified on admission as cognitively impaired, were randomised to the MMHU or to standard care on acute geriatric or general medical wards. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, at 3-month follow-up, was assessed in trial-based economic evaluation (599/600 participants, intervention: 309). Multiple imputation and complete-case sample analyses were employed to deal with missing QALY data (55%).ResultsThe total adjusted health and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months was £7714 and £7862 for MMHU and standard care groups, respectively (difference -£149 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -298, 4)). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.001 (95% CI: -0.006, 0.008). The probability that the intervention was dominant was 58%, and the probability that it was cost-saving with QALY loss was 39%. At £20,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 94%, falling to 59% when cost-saving QALY loss cases were excluded.ConclusionsThe MMHU was strongly cost-effective using usual criteria, although considerably less so when the less acceptable situation with QALY loss and cost savings were excluded. Nevertheless, this model of care is worthy of further evaluation.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01136148

Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study

“…The logistical benefits of using large databases may be desirable for researchers, funding bodies looking for studies that use efficient designs and the National Health Services (NHSs) within the United Kingdom (UK) in general; such study designs have been suggested as an approach to enable patients to be entered into RCTs more quickly than traditional study designs [4]. The accurate measurement of patient-level resource-use information for the purpose of economic evaluation has historically been challenging when relying on self-reported methods [5] or raw data extracted from healthcare services [6–8]. These large observational databases provide a great deal of patient-level resource-use information, which includes data about doctors’ visits in clinic or at home, inpatient or outpatient care and prescribed drugs at the practice level—the type of data available depends on the database.…”

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of English memory assessment services 2 years after first consultation for patients with dementia

“…Firstly, the cost‐effectiveness analysis is based on the largest observational study of patients referred to MAS in England. Unlike previous studies focussing on a single memory clinic, our sample is representative of MAS across all regions in the country and in terms of other organisational features . Secondly, this study reports on the cost‐effectiveness of MAS providing a broad, integrated approach to diagnosis, treatment, and follow‐up care of patients with dementia.…”

Cost-effectiveness of Memory Assessment Services for the diagnosis and early support of patients with dementia in England

“…Such changes would involve a decrease of 0.07 in the EQ-5D-3L score (0.71 to 0.64) and an increase in costs (£1543 to £1850) over the 6 months. These changes are unlikely given the changes observed for 'usual care' patients in recent clinical trials (10,28,29).…”

“…Unlike previous studies focussing on a single memory clinic (9,13,28), our results are representative of MAS across all regions in the country (14). This economic evaluation is based on rigorous collection of data on different measures of effectiveness (both disease-specific and generic HQRL measures reported by patients and carers), and costs to the NHS, social care, carers and patients (adopting a societal perspective).…”