Search

Background. Between 2015 and 2020, 1,578 care homes in the UK closed, displacing nearly 50,000 older and disabled people with very significant care and support needs. It is widely thought that relocation can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of older people. Yet, evidence is limited due to sensitivity and logistical difficulties with data collection. This study aimed to review the published literature in order to (i) identify evidence on the costs, consequences, and wider impacts of care home closures, for older people, family members, care home staff, and local authorities and (ii) understand the causes of and processes surrounding the closure of residential care homes in the UK. Methods. Eight electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ASSIA, HMIC, AgeInfo, and SPP) were searched from 1st January 2000 to 9th February 2023; Google and Google Scholar were searched for guidance/policy documents from the grey literature. Data on the objectives, methods, and main results were extracted, and the findings were narratively reported. Results. Eighteen records, comprising guidance documents and academic publications (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches), met the inclusion criteria. We found a lack of good quality evidence on costs of closure and no consideration of outcomes for staff. Studies reporting on outcomes for residents suggest there may not be any long-term adverse effects on their health, in contrast to often-expressed views that care home closures result in harm. Conclusion. Future research should consider the stress and anxiety experienced by staff and families as relevant outcomes and show caution with respect to the use of proxy reporting of resident health outcomes. Given that a sizable portion of the costs associated with care home closure falls on local authorities, an evidence-based approach to closures that includes an assessment of cost-effectiveness will help to improve future outcomes and guide the most efficient use of limited public resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health and social care policy in the UK advocates inter-professional working (IPW) to support older people with complex and multiple needs. Whilst there is a growing understanding of what supports IPW, there is a lack of evidence linking IPW to explicit outcomes for older people living in the community. This review aimed to identify the models of IPW that provide the strongest evidence base for practice with community dwelling older people. We searched electronic databases from 1 January 1990-31 March 2008. In December 2010 we updated the findings from relevant systematic reviews identified since 2008. We selected papers describing interventions that involved IPW for community dwelling older people and randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting user-relevant outcomes. Included studies were classified by IPW models (Case Management, Collaboration and Integrated Team) and assessed for risk of bias. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence according to the type of care (interventions delivering acute, chronic, palliative and preventive care) identified within each model of IPW. We retrieved 3211 records and included 37 RCTs which were mapped onto the IPW models: Overall, there is weak evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for IPW, although well-integrated and shared care models improved processes of care and have the potential to reduce hospital or nursing/care home use. Study quality varied considerably and high quality evaluations as well as observational studies are needed to identify the key components of effective IPW in relation to user-defined outcomes. Differences in local contexts raise questions about the applicability of the findings and their implications for practice. We need more information on the outcomes of the process of IPW and evaluations of the effectiveness of different configurations of health and social care professionals for the care of community dwelling older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the costs and cost‐effectiveness of the Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP) implemented and piloted in the UK, Poland and Italy, replicating the Dutch Meeting Centre model. Dutch Meeting Centres combine day services for people with dementia with carer support. Data were collected over 2015–2016 from MCSP and usual care (UC) participants (people with dementia‐carer dyads) at baseline and 6 months. We examined participants' health and social care (HSC), and societal costs, including Meeting Centre (MC) attendances. Costs and outcomes in MCSP and UC groups were compared. Primary outcomes: Persons with dementia: quality‐adjusted life years (EQ‐5D‐5L‐derived); QOL‐AD. DQoL was examined as a secondary outcome. Carers: Short Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ). Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves were obtained by bootstrapping outcome and cost regression estimates. Eighty‐three MCSP and 69 UC dyads were analysed. The 6‐month cost of providing MCSP was €4,703; participants with dementia attended MC a mean of 45 times and carers 15 times. Including intervention costs, adjusted 6‐month HSC costs were €5,941higher in MCSP than in UC. From the HSC perspective: in terms of QALY, the probability of cost‐effectiveness was zero over willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) ranging from €0 to €350,000. On QOL‐AD, the probability of cost‐effectiveness of MCSP was 50% at WTP of €5,000 for a one‐point increase. A one‐point gain in the DQoL positive affect subscale had a probability of cost‐effectiveness of 99% at WTP over €8,000. On SSCQ, no significant difference was found between MCSP and UC. Evidence for cost‐effectiveness of MCSP was mixed but suggests that it may be cost‐effective in relation to gains in dementia‐specific quality of life measures. MCs offer effective tailored post‐diagnostic support services to both people with dementia and carers in a context where few evidence‐based alternatives to formal home‐based social services may be available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study's aim was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an NHS/Social Services short-term residential rehabilitation unit (a form of intermediate care) for older people on discharge from community hospital compared with ‘usual’ community services. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective controlled trial, which explored the effectiveness of a rehabilitation unit in a practice setting. The aim of the unit was to help individuals regain independence. A matched control group went home from hospital with the health/social care services they would ordinarily receive. The research was conducted in two matched geographical areas in Devon: one with a rehabilitation unit, one without. Participants were recruited from January 1999 to October 2000 in 10 community hospitals and their eligibility determined using the unit's strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, including 55 years or older and likely to benefit from a short-term rehabilitation programme: potential to improve, realistic, achievable goals, motivation to participate. Ninety-four people were recruited to the intervention and 112 to the control group. Details were collated of the NHS and Social Services resources participants used over a 12-month follow-up. The cost of the resource use was compared between those who went to the unit and those who went straight home. Overall, costs were very similar between the two groups. Aggregated mean NHS/Social Services costs for the 12 months of follow-up were £8542.28 for the intervention group and £8510.68 for the control. However, there was a clear ‘seesaw’ effect between the NHS and Social Services: the cost of the unit option fell more heavily on Social Services (£5011.56, whereas £3530.72 to the NHS), the community option more so on the NHS (£5146.74, whereas £3363.94 to Social Services). This suggests that residential rehabilitation for older people is no more cost-effective over a year after discharge from community hospital than usual community services. The variability in cost burden between the NHS and Social Services has implications for ‘who pays’ and being sure that agencies share both pain and gain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]