Study protocol for The GOAL Trial: comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older people with chronic kidney disease to increase attainment of patient-identified goals-a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of older people are living with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Many have complex healthcare needs and are at risk of deteriorating health and functional status, which can adversely affect their quality of life. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an effective intervention to improve survival and independence of older people, but its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness in frail older people living with CKD is unknown. METHODS: The GOAL Trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, superiority, cluster randomised controlled trial developed by consumers, clinicians, and researchers. It has a two-arm design, CGA compared with standard care, with 1:1 allocation of a total of 16 clusters. Within each cluster, study participants ≥ 65 years of age (or ≥ 55 years if Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (First Nations Australians)) with CKD stage 3-5/5D who are frail, measured by a Frailty Index (FI) of > 0.25, are recruited. Participants in intervention clusters receive a CGA by a geriatrician to identify medical, social, and functional needs, optimise medication prescribing, and arrange multidisciplinary referral if required. Those in standard care clusters receive usual care. The primary outcome is attainment of self-identified goals assessed by standardised Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include GAS at 6 and 12 months, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), frailty (Frailty Index - Short Form), transfer to residential aged care facilities, cost-effectiveness, and safety (cause-specific hospitalisations, mortality). A process evaluation will be conducted in parallel with the trial including whether the intervention was delivered as intended, any issue or local barriers to intervention delivery, and perceptions of the intervention by participants. The trial has 90% power to detect a clinically meaningful mean difference in GAS of 10 units. DISCUSSION: This trial addresses patient-prioritised outcomes. It will be conducted, disseminated and implemented by clinicians and researchers in partnership with consumers. If CGA is found to have clinical and cost-effectiveness for frail older people with CKD, the intervention framework could be embedded into routine clinical practice. The implementation of the trial's findings will be supported by presentations at conferences and forums with clinicians and consumers at specifically convened workshops, to enable rapid adoption into practice and policy for both nephrology and geriatric disciplines. It has potential to materially advance patient-centred care and improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes (including quality of life) for frail older people living with CKD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04538157. Registered on 3 September 2020.

An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting.

OBJECTIVES: To empirically compare Markov cohort modeling (MM) and discrete event simulation (DES) with and without dynamic queuing (DQ) for cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of a novel method of health services delivery where capacity constraints predominate. METHODS: A common data-set comparing usual orthopedic care (UC) to an orthopedic physiotherapy screening clinic and multidisciplinary treatment service (OPSC) was used to develop a MM and a DES without (DES-no-DQ) and with DQ (DES-DQ). Model results were then compared in detail. RESULTS: The MM predicted an incremental CE ratio (ICER) of $495 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for OPSC over UC. The DES-no-DQ showed OPSC dominating UC; the DES-DQ generated an ICER of $2342 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The MM and DES-no-DQ ICER estimates differed due to the MM having implicit delays built into its structure as a result of having fixed cycle lengths, which are not a feature of DES. The non-DQ models assume that queues are at a steady state. Conversely, queues in the DES-DQ develop flexibly with supply and demand for resources, in this case, leading to different estimates of resource use and CE. The choice of MM or DES (with or without DQ) would not alter the reimbursement of OPSC as it was highly cost-effective compared to UC in all analyses. However, the modeling method may influence decisions where ICERs are closer to the CE acceptability threshold, or where capacity constraints and DQ are important features of the system. In these cases, DES-DQ would be the preferred modeling technique to avoid incorrect resource allocation decisions.

Can post-acute care programmes for older people reduce overall costs in the health system? A case study using the Australian Transition Care Programme.

There is an increasing demand for acute care services due in part to rising proportions of older people and increasing rates of chronic diseases. To reduce pressure and costs in the hospital system, community-based post-acute care discharge services for older people have evolved as one method of reducing length of stay in hospital and preventing readmissions. However, it is unclear whether they reduce overall episode cost or expenditure in the health system at a more general level. In this paper, we review the current evidence on the likely costs and benefits of these services and consider whether they are potentially cost-effective from a health services perspective, using the Australian Transition Care Programme as a case study. Evaluations of community-based post-acute services have demonstrated that they reduce length of stay, prevent some re-hospitalisations and defer nursing home placement. There is also evidence that they convey some additional health benefits to older people. An economic model was developed to identify the maximum potential benefits and the likely cost savings from reduced use of health services from earlier discharge from hospital, accelerated recovery, reduced likelihood of readmission to hospital and delayed entry into permanent institutional care for participants of the Transition Care Programme. Assuming the best case scenario, the Transition Care Programme is still unlikely to be cost saving to a healthcare system. Hence for this service to be justified, additional health benefits such as quality of life improvements need to be taken into account. If it can be demonstrated that this service also conveys additional quality of life improvements, community-based programmes such as Transition Care could be considered to be cost-effective when compared with other healthcare programmes.