Home care in Europe: a systematic literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health and social services provided at home are becoming increasingly important. Hence, there is a need for information on home care in Europe. The objective of this literature review was to respond to this need by systematically describing what has been reported on home care in Europe in the scientific literature over the past decade.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search was performed for papers on home care published in English, using the following data bases: Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Social Care Online. Studies were only included if they complied with the definition of home care, were published between January 1998 and October 2009, and dealt with at least one of the 31 specified countries. Clinical interventions, instrument developments, local projects and reviews were excluded. The data extracted included: the characteristics of the study and aspects of home care 'policy & regulation', 'financing', 'organisation & service delivery', and 'clients & informal carers'.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy-four out of 5,133 potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, providing information on 18 countries. Many focused on the characteristics of home care recipients and on the organisation of home care. Geographical inequalities, market forces, quality and integration of services were also among the issues frequently discussed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Home care systems appeared to differ both between and within countries. The papers included, however, provided only a limited picture of home care. Many studies only focused on one aspect of the home care system and international comparative studies were rare. Furthermore, little information emerged on home care financing and on home care in general in Eastern Europe. This review clearly shows the need for more scientific publications on home care, especially studies comparing countries. A comprehensive and more complete insight into the state of home care in Europe requires the gathering of information using a uniform framework and methodology.</p

Cost-effectiveness of an integrated 'fast track' rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients: A non-randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands

<div><p>Background</p><p>Multidisciplinary rehabilitation has been recommended for multi-trauma patients, but there is only low-quality evidence to support its use with these patients. This study examined whether a Supported Fast track multi-Trauma Rehabilitation Service (Fast Track) was cost-effective compared to conventional trauma rehabilitation service (Care As Usual) in patients with multi-trauma from a societal perspective with a one-year follow-up.</p><p>Methods</p><p>An economic evaluation alongside a prospective, multi-center, non-randomized, controlled clinical study, was conducted in the Netherlands. The primary outcome measure was the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Generic Quality of Life and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of the patients were derived using the Short-form 36 Health Status Questionnaire.</p><p>Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were stated in terms of costs per unit of FIM improvement and costs per QALY. To investigate the uncertainty around the ICERs, non-parametric bootstrapping was used.</p><p>Results</p><p>In total, 132 patients participated, 65 Fast Track patients and 67 Care As Usual patients. Mean total costs per person were €18,918 higher in the Fast Track group than in the Care As Usual group. Average incremental effects on the FIM were 3.7 points (in favor of the Fast Track group) and the incremental (extra) bootstrapped costs were €19,033, resulting in an ICER for cost per FIM improvement of €5,177. Care As Usual dominated Fast Track in cost per QALY as it gave both higher QALYs and lower costs. All sensitivity analyses attested to the robustness of our results.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>This study demonstrated that a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for multi-trauma patients according to the supported fast track principle is promising but cost-effectiveness evidence remains inconclusive. In terms of functional outcome, Fast Track was more expensive but yielded also more effects compared to the Care As Usual group. Looking at the costs per QALYs, unfavorable ICERs were found. Given the lack of a willingness-to-pay threshold for functional recovery and the relatively short time horizon, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the first.</p><p>Trial registration</p><p>(Current Controlled Trials register: <a href="http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN68246661" target="_blank">ISRCTN68246661</a>).</p></div

Effects of an Integrated ‘Fast Track’ Rehabilitation Service for Multi-Trauma Patients: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial in the Netherlands

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>The effects on health related outcomes of a newly-developed rehabilitation program, called ‘supported Fast Track multi-trauma rehabilitation service’ (Fast Track), were evaluated in comparison with conventional trauma rehabilitation service (Care as Usual).</p><p>Methods</p><p>Prospective, multi-center, non-randomized controlled study. Between 2009 and 2012, 132 adult multi-trauma patients were included: 65 Fast Track and 67 Care as Usual patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥16, complex multiple injuries in several extremities or complex pelvic and/or acetabulum fractures. The Fast Track program involved: <i>integrated</i> coordination between trauma surgeon and rehabilitation physician, shorter stay in hospital with faster transfer to a specialized trauma rehabilitation unit, earlier start of multidisciplinary treatment and ‘non-weight bearing’ mobilization. Primary outcomes were functional status (FIM) and quality of life (SF-36) measured through questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-trauma. Outcomes were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects regression model.</p><p>Results</p><p>The FIM scores significantly increased between 0 and 3 months (p<0.001) for both groups showing that they had improved overall, and continued to improve between 3 and 6 months for Fast Track (p = 0.04) and between 3 and 9 months for Care as Usual (p = 0.03). SF-36 scores significantly improved in both groups between 3 and 6 months (Fast Track, p<0.001; Care as Usual, p = 0.01). At 12 months, SF-36 scores were still below (self-reported) baseline measurements of patient health prior to the accident. However, the FIM and SF-36 scores differed little between the groups at any of the measured time points.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Both Fast Track and Care as Usual rehabilitation programs were effective in that multi-trauma patients improved their functional status and quality of life. A faster (maximum) recovery in functional status was observed for Fast Track at 6 months compared to 9 months for Care as Usual. At twelve months follow-up no differential effects between treatment conditions were found.</p><p>Trial Registration</p><p><a href="http://www.isrctn.com/search?q=68246661" target="_blank">ISRCTN68246661</a></p></div

Mixed-model Analyses over Four Time Points for the Primary and Secondary Outcomes.

<p>Mixed-model Analyses over Four Time Points for the Primary and Secondary Outcomes.</p

Baseline Characteristics of the Participants.

<p>Baseline Characteristics of the Participants.</p

Mixed-model Analyses for the Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Rates of Changes over Time within Both Groups.

<p>Mixed-model Analyses for the Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Rates of Changes over Time within Both Groups.</p

Flow Diagram of the Participants.

<p>Flow Diagram of the Participants.</p