Search

There are long‐standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost‐effectiveness of three different 'in patient care coordination and discharge planning' configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in‐reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no 'step‐down' care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in‐reach, discharge coordination and 'step‐down' intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in‐reach and discharge coordination as well as step‐down care. These three configurations were each compared with 'standard care' (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi‐outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on‐costs, capital, overheads and 'hotel' costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality‐adjusted‐life‐years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed‐based intermediate care, step‐down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost‐effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost‐effectiveness recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This review presents a realist synthesis of “what works and why” in intermediate care for people who are homeless. The overall aim was to update an earlier synthesis of intermediate care by capturing new evidence from a recent UK government funding initiative (the “Homeless Hospital Discharge Fund”). The initiative made resources available to the charitable sector to enable partnership working with the National Health Service (NHS) in order to improve hospital discharge arrangements for people who are homeless. The synthesis adopted the RAMESES guidelines and reporting standards. Electronic searches were carried out for peer‐reviewed articles published in English from 2000 to 2016. Local evaluations and the grey literature were also included. The inclusion criteria was that articles and reports should describe “interventions” that encompassed most of the key characteristics of intermediate care as previously defined in the academic literature. Searches yielded 47 articles and reports. Most of these originated in the UK or the USA and fell within the realist quality rating of “thick description”. The synthesis involved using this new evidence to interrogate the utility of earlier programme theories. Overall, the results confirmed the importance of (i) collaborative care planning, (ii) reablement and (iii) integrated working as key to effective intermediate care delivery. However, the additional evidence drawn from the field of homelessness highlighted the potential for some theory refinements. First, that “psychologically informed” approaches to relationship building may be necessary to ensure that service users are meaningfully engaged in collaborative care planning and second, that integrated working could be managed differently so that people are not “handed over” at the point at which the intermediate care episode ends. This was theorised as key to ensuring that ongoing care arrangements do not break down and that gains are not lost to the person or the system vis‐à‐vis the prevention of readmission to hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In England, 70% of people who were homeless on admission to hospital were discharged back to the street without having their care and support needs addressed (Department of Health, 2013). Furthermore they experienced high hospital readmission rates and often resorted to inappropriate use of the Emergency Department. Following these data, Government funding was provided to enable hospitals to work with local partners to develop specialist integrated homeless hospital discharge schemes, including intermediate or stepup/step-down care. In this paper we report preliminary findings from a realist evaluation which explored the effectiveness of the different schemes established. Schemes took many different formats, and tended to be either uniprofessional, comprising housing workers, or multi-professional, comprising: GPs; occupational therapists; nurses; social workers; housing workers; and peer navigators. Methods: The study was carried out in England between September 2015 and February 2018. It was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). It employs a realist evaluation methodology, comparing sites with specialist integrated care (n=4) to those with standard care (n=2). Realist evaluation is designed to explore the relationship between the local context, the mechanisms and resources deployed and the outcomes. The overall aim is to generate hypotheses about 'what works for whom, in what circumstances and why'. Across the six study sites in-depth observational fieldwork was undertaken. This encompassed interviews with 60 practitioners and stakeholders, and 60 people who were homeless on admission to hospital. People who were homeless were interviewed shortly after discharge and again three months later. An economic evaluation and 'data linkage' (across a total of 20 sites) were also undertaken to interrogate the emerging realist hypotheses. Preliminary Results: Our emerging hypothesis is that there is no 'magic bullet' or single most effective solution. Findings so far indicate that improving hospital discharge arrangements for people who are homeless requires action on many different fronts to weave together a range of potentially effective mechanisms and resources. To illustrate this, we will present examples of different local configurations evolving over time, in rural and urban contexts, mapping the advantages and disadvantages of each. We will pinpoint a number of key attributes of effective systems (e.g. clear protocols for the discharge of people who are homeless, discharge co-ordination and intermediate care) and the factors that may explain why these are necessary and workable in some but not all locations. Throughout, we will tease out the concept of 'specialist integrated care' and whether this is indicative of improved quality or further fragmentation. Limitations and future research: The limitations of the research are that it is focused on England. We hope that during the conference we can engage with international colleagues with a view to scoping ideas for future comparative research in the field of integrated care transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]