Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of Municipal Acute Wards Versus a General Hospital

September 7, 2021 updated by: Ann-Chatrin Leonardsen, Ostfold University College

Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of Municipal Acute Wards Versus a General Hospital: a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

Demographic changes in the industrialized world are expected to prompt a need for better organized and more efficient health care services. In order to curb costs, health care providers in many countries are searching for viable alternatives to hospitalizations. Norwegian white papers and reform documents presume that the municipalities will play a central role in meeting the growth in demand for health services. Central public policy documents and national research strategies highlight that we need pathways characterized by good quality and safe care, and which are responsive to needs, based on user involvement, continuity of care and successful collaboration within and between service levels. The 2012 Coordination Reform placed new responsibilities on municipalities in the delivery of primary health care services and on hospitals as deliverers of specialist services, as well as on the integration and collaboration between the two organizational levels. This reform mandates that all 428 Norwegian municipalities are obliged to establish or co-operate on establishing Municipal Acute Wards (MAW) (In Norwegian: Kommunale akutte døgnplasser), so as to alleviate pressure on hospitals. However, the research basis for these units is relatively weak. Hence, there is little information on the outcomes regarding the quality, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported as well as personnel-reported outcomes of this new level of care.

This study aims at assessing the outcome of admissions to MAWs compared to a general hospital for patients in need of acute care, that can be treated at a lower and decentralized level of health care, with potentially less resources than traditional hospitalizations. The study will use a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design. It builds on previous research and systematic reviews, and aims to assess several outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient experiences, cost-effectiveness, short-term mortality and morbidity, and draws on linkages to national registers.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

No other randomized, controlled studies have been conducted to compare healthcare services as offered in MAWs to those offered in hospital. The study will undertake an economic evaluation and study other outcomes of an intervention, using an RCT design, which is a strong study design. The study also includes measures of HRQoL and patient experiences. The project is interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral, and it represents research in, about and with support from the municipalities, which is a prioritized area of research, together with health services research, for the owners of the Østfold Hospital Trust, Helse Sør-Øst (HSØ). The project incorporates users in the planning of the project, which may contribute better acceptance of and a successful completion of the project. This proposal addresses key aspects of the CR and other national strategic documents. The CR has mandated the establishment of MAWs all over Norway as of 2016, without any strong scientific documentation of cost-effectiveness. The study builds on data from previous research, stating that there is a need for more solid documentation about new levels of acute hospital care. The proposed study will assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and several aspects of quality of care and will contribute useful information for evaluation and future planning of MAWs, as an alternative to hospitalization. Therefore the researchers think this project is timely. The MAWs in Østfold County are small to medium-sized and are expected to be representative for the majority of MAWs in Norway, and therefore of broad national interest. These outputs will be important for authorities, politicians, healthcare leaders, and professionals as well as researchers involved in developing, implementing and refining decentralized acute health care services as an alternative to hospitalization- to the best of the patients. Moreover, the project outputs will be of international interest, in particular in countries with national health insurance with broad coverage, as in the Nordic countries, the UK, Canada and Australia.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

183

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Østfold
      • Sarpsborg, Østfold, Norway, 1714
        • Ostfold Hospital Trust

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Ability to provide written, informed consent
  • Eligible for admission at a MAW according to established admission criteria
  • Assessed and referred by a GP, by a physician at the local Casualty (Legevaktslege), or a physician in a nursing home on the same day

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Psychiatric or cognitive impairment
  • No Norwegian national identification number
  • Acute disability in elderly, requiring extensive diagnostic procedures
  • Patients admitted to the MAW via the diagnostic loop*
  • Previous admission to a MAW during the project period (to prevent patients being included more than once in the project)
  • Insufficient Norwegian language skills to respond to the questionnaires

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Hospital
Level of healthcare service: Patients who can be admitted to a municipal acute ward (MAW) will be admitted to the hospital instead, so that the intervention is that patients are admitted to a higher level facility than needed. Recieve medical treatment as usual.
Patiens judged to be eligible for admittance to a municipal acute care wrad will be admitted to hospital as an intervnetion, to be able to compare same patient groups.
No Intervention: Municipal acute ward
Patients admitted to decentralized, municipal acute care wards after being assessed by a referring physician.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient experiences, NORPEQ
Time Frame: 2-4 weeks after discharge
Norwegian Patient Experience Questionnaire. Six of the eight NORPEQ items sum to produce an overall scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best possible experience of care. If respondents had missing values on more than half of the items, mean scores will be imputed.
2-4 weeks after discharge

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
30-day mortality
Time Frame: 30 days
Number of deaths within 30 days after discharge, all causes
30 days
30-day re-admission
Time Frame: 30 days
Number of re-admissions to hospital or MAW within 30 days after discharge, all causes
30 days
Length of stay
Time Frame: 8 days
Number of days patients are admitted to either hospital or MAW
8 days
Number of inpatients stays
Time Frame: 3 months
Number of inpatient stays in a healthcare institution
3 months
Transfer of patients between MAW and hospital
Time Frame: 1,5 year
Number of patients transferred from MAW to hospital
1,5 year
Patient experiences
Time Frame: 4 weeks after discharge

As measured by the NORPEQ questionnaire. The questionnaire consist of eight items. The overall scale goes from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best possible experience of care.

The

4 weeks after discharge
Health status as assessed with the RAND-12 instrument
Time Frame: 4 weeks after discharge
The RAND-12 health status inventory (aka SF-12) is a commonly used health status instrument, which was developed as part of the Medical outcomes study in the 1980s. It uses 12 items from the SF-36 and can be aggregated to a physical health component score and an mental health component score.
4 weeks after discharge
Costs and cost-effectiveness
Time Frame: 1,5 year

Costs will be estimated for the patients' hospital stays as

[Actual inpatient-days*(DRG cost/National average LOS for the DRG)],

and for each admission to a MAW as

[Actual inpatient-days*Total annual MAW cost/Total number of MAW inpatient-days)].

1,5 year
Eq5D5L
Time Frame: 1,5 year

Health related quality of life. The descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. The patient is asked to indicate his/her health state by ticking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the five dimensions. This decision results in a 1-digit number that expresses the level selected for that dimension. The digits for the five dimensions can be combined into a 5-digit number that describes the patient's health state.

The EQ VAS records the patient's self-rated health on a vertical visual analogue scale, where the endpoints are labelled 'The best health you can imagine' and 'The worst health you can imagine'. The VAS can be used as a quantitative measure of health outcome that reflect the patient's own judgement

1,5 year

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 1, 2019

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 31, 2021

Study Completion (Actual)

January 31, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 5, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 19, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

March 21, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 9, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 7, 2021

Last Verified

September 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • HS2522-40480

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Quality of Life

Clinical Trials on Level of healthcare services

3
Subscribe