ºÚÁÏÍø

Abstract

Background: Additional Saturday inpatient rehabilitation will improve clinical outcomes, yet the cost is unknown. We aimed to determine from a health service and health system perspective if it is cost effective to provide additional Saturday inpatient rehabilitation. Methods: Cost effectiveness analyses alongside a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with a 30-day, 6 and 12 months follow up. Participants were adults admitted to two publicly funded inpatient rehabilitation facilities in Melbourne, Australia. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus additional Saturday rehabilitation. Results: 996 patients (mean age 74 years) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=496) or the control group (n=500). From admission to discharge the intervention group participants had better health-related quality of life (MD EQ-5D 0.04, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.07, p=0.009) and higher functional independence (MD FIM 2.3, 95% CI 0.5 to 4.1, p=0.01) and had a shorter length of stay by 2 days (95%CI 0 to 4, p=0.1). The mean cost difference was AUD$1,673 (95%CI -271 to 3,618; p=0.09) from admission to 30-days following discharge, AUD$6,445 (95%CI 3,368 to 9,522; p=0.04) from admission to 6 months following discharge and AUD$6,325 (95%CI -4,081 to 16,730; p=0.23) from admission to 12 months following discharge. All favoured the intervention group. Conclusions: Providing additional inpatient rehabilitation services on Saturday is cost effective for both the health service and the broader health system.

Biography

Email: nbrusco@cabrini.com.au