ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) nurse-led transitional care program in older (≥70 years) cardiac patients compared to usual care.MethodsThe intervention group (n = 153) received the CCB program consisting of case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation in the transition from hospital to home on top of usual care and was compared with the usual care group (n = 153). Outcomes included a composite measure of first all-cause unplanned hospital readmission or mortality, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and societal costs within six months follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Statistical uncertainty surrounding Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) was estimated by using bootstrapped seemingly unrelated regression.ResultsNo significant between group differences in the composite outcome of readmission or mortality nor in societal costs were observed. QALYs were statistically significantly lower in the intervention group, mean difference -0.03 (95% CI: -0.07; -0.02). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the maximum probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.31 at a Willingness To Pay (WTP) of €0,00 and 0.14 at a WTP of €50,000 per composite outcome prevented and 0.32 and 0.21, respectively per QALY gained.ConclusionThe CCB program was on average more expensive and less effective compared to usual care, indicating that the CCB program is dominated by usual care. Therefore, the CCB program cannot be considered cost-effective compared to usual care.
MULTIFILE
Background: after hospitalisation for cardiac disease, older patients are at high risk of readmission and death. Objective: the cardiac care bridge (CCB) transitional care programme evaluated the impact of combining case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on hospital readmission and mortality. Design: single-blind, randomised clinical trial. Setting: the trial was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands between June 2017 and March 2020. Community-based nurses and physical therapists continued care post-discharge. Subjects: cardiac patients ≥ 70 years were eligible if they were at high risk of functional loss or if they had had an unplanned hospital admission in the previous 6 months. Methods: the intervention group received a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based integrated care plan, a face-to-face handover with the community nurse before discharge and follow-up home visits. The community nurse collaborated with a pharmacist and participants received home-based CR from a physical therapist. The primary composite outcome was first all-cause unplanned readmission or mortality at 6 months. Results: in total, 306 participants were included. Mean age was 82.4 (standard deviation 6.3), 58% had heart failure and 92% were acutely hospitalised. 67% of the intervention key-elements were delivered. The composite outcome incidence was 54.2% (83/153) in the intervention group and 47.7% (73/153) in the control group (risk differences 6.5% [95% confidence intervals, CI -4.7 to 18%], risk ratios 1.14 [95% CI 0.91-1.42], P = 0.253). The study was discontinued prematurely due to implementation activities in usual care. Conclusion: in high-risk older cardiac patients, the CCB programme did not reduce hospital readmission or mortality within 6 months.
Context: Inadequate handovers between hospital and home can lead to adverse health outcomes. A group particularly at risk is patients at the end of life because of complex health problems, frequent care transitions, and involvement of many professionals. Objectives: To investigate health care providers' views and experiences with regard to the transition from hospital to primary care in palliative care. Methods: This was a descriptive qualitative study. Three focus group discussions were held with 28 nurses and two focus groups with nine physicians. Participants were recruited from primary and hospital care. The focus groups were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. Results: The following themes emerged from the data: lack of identification of and communication about the last phase of life; incomplete and insufficient handover; and uncertainty about responsibilities. Professionals emphasize the importance of proper handovers and transitional processes in these vulnerable patients. The transition between hospital to primary care is hindered by a lack of identification of the palliative phase and uncertainties about patient awareness. Direct communication between professionals is needed but lacking. The handover itself is currently primarily focused on physical aspects where psychosocial aspects were also found necessary. Furthermore, uncertainties with regard to physicians' responsibility for the patient seem to further hinder professionals in the transitional process. Conclusion: Efforts should be made to enhance knowledge and skills around identification of palliative needs and communication with patients about the end of life, especially in the hospital setting.
