Effectiveness of out-patient based acute heart failure care: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Acute heart failure (AHF) hospitalisation is associated with 10% mortality. Outpatient based management (OPM) of AHF appeared effective in observational studies. We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing OPM with standard inpatient care (IPM). METHODS: We randomised patients with AHF, considered to need IV diuretic treatment for ≥2 days, to IPM or OPM. We recorded all-cause mortality, and the number of days alive and out-of-hospital (DAOH). Quality of life, mental well-being and Hope scores were assessed. Mean NHS cost savings and 95% central range (CR) were calculated from bootstrap analysis. Follow-up: 60 days. RESULTS: Eleven patients were randomised to IPM and 13 to OPM. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality during the index episode (1/11 vs 0/13) and up to 60 days follow-up (2/11 vs 2/13) [p = .86]. The OPM group accrued more DAOH {47 [36,51] vs 59 [41,60], p = .13}. Two patients randomised to IPM (vs 6 OPM) were readmitted [p = .31]. Hope scores increased more with OPM within 30 days but dropped to lower levels than IPM by 60 days. More out-patients had increased total well-being scores by 60 days (p = .04). OPM was associated with mean cost savings of £2658 (95% CR 460-4857) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute HF randomised to OPM accrued more days alive out of hospital (albeit not statistically significantly in this small pilot study). OPM is favoured by patients and carers and is associated with improved mental well-being and cost savings.

Community-based continuity of midwifery care versus standard hospital care: a cost analysis.

This paper reports the costs of providing a new model of maternity care compared to standard care in an Australian public hospital. The mean cost of providing care per woman was lower in the group who had the new model of care compared with standard care ($2,579 versus $3,483). Cost savings associated with new model of care were maintained even after costs associated with admission to special care nursery were excluded. The cost saving was also sustained even when the caesarean section rate in the new model of care increased to beyond that of the standard care group.