Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9624070›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1998

Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness and acceptability of an early discharge, hospital at home scheme with acute hospital care.

S H Richards, J Coast, D J Gunnell, T J Peters, J Pounsford, M A Darlow

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
42.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 167 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Early discharge hospital at home.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Hip fracture.BMJ clinical evidence · 2010
    Pooled it
  11. Early discharge hospital at home.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  12. Avoiding hospital admission through provision of hospital care at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2009
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Patient and carer satisfaction with 'hospital at home': quantitative and qualitative results from a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S H RichardsDepartment of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR. suzanne.richards@bris.ac.uk
J Coast
D J Gunnell
T J Peters
J Pounsford
M A Darlow
University of Bristol · GBFrenchay Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare effectiveness and acceptability of early discharge to a hospital at home scheme with that of routine discharge from acute hospital.

designPragmatic randomised controlled trial.

settingAcute hospital wards and community in north of Bristol, with a catchment population of about 224 000 people. SUBJECTS: 241 hospitalised but medically stable elderly patients who fulfilled criteria for early discharge to hospital at home scheme and who consented to participate.

interventionsPatients' received hospital at home care or routine hospital care.

main outcome measuresPatients' quality of life, satisfaction, and physical functioning assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after randomisation to treatment; length of stay in hospital and in hospital at home scheme after randomisation; mortality at 3 months.

resultsThere were no significant differences in patient mortality, quality of life, and physical functioning between the two arms of the trial at 4 weeks or 3 months. Only one of 11 measures of patient satisfaction was significantly different: hospital at home patients perceived higher levels of involvement in decisions. Length of stay for those receiving routine hospital care was 62% (95% confidence interval 51% to 75%) of length of stay in hospital at home scheme.

conclusionsThe early discharge hospital at home scheme was similar to routine hospital discharge in terms of effectiveness and acceptability. Increased length of stay associated with the scheme must be interpreted with caution because of different organisational characteristics of the services.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHome Care Services, Hospital-BasedHospitals, DistrictHumansLength of StayMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient DischargePatient SatisfactionPatient SelectionQuality of LifeUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID9624070
PMCPMC28580
OpenAlexW2020938923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.