Personal Social Services Research Unit at Kent

Evidence containing data sourced from Personal Social Services Research Unit at Kent

A comparative cost and outcome analysis with residential care
Baumker T Journal of Service Science and Management, 40, 523-539. 2011

Extra care housing is a housing model that has considerable potential to support older people in leading active, independent lives.

A structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke (TRACS): a cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis
Forster A, et al Lancet, 382, 2069-2076. 2013

Most patients who have had a stroke are dependent on informal caregivers for activities of daily living. The TRACS trial investigated a training programme for caregivers (the London Stroke Carers Training Course, LSCTC) on physical and psychological outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, for patients and caregivers after a disabling stroke.

We undertook a pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis. Stroke units were eligible if four of five criteria used to define a stroke unit were met, a substantial number of patients on the unit had a diagnosis of stroke, staff were able to deliver the LSCTC, and most patients were discharged to a permanent place of residence. Stroke units were randomly assigned to either LSCTC or usual care (control group), stratified by geographical region and quality of care, and using blocks of size 2. Patients with a diagnosis of stroke, likely to return home with residual disability and with a caregiver providing support were eligible. The primary outcome for patients was self-reported extended activities of daily living at 6 months, measured with the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale. The primary outcome for caregivers was self-reported burden at 6 months, measured with the caregivers burden scale (CBS). We combined patient and caregiver costs with primary outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to assess cost-effectiveness. This trial is registered with, number ISRCTN 49208824.

We assessed 49 stroke units for eligibility, of which 36 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. Between Feb 27, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 928 patient and caregiver dyads were registered, of which 450 were in the intervention group, and 478 in the control group. Patients’ self-reported extended activities of daily living did not differ between groups at 6 months (adjusted mean NEADL score 27·4 in the intervention group versus 27·6 in the control group, difference -0·2 points [95% CI -3·0 to 2·5], p value=0·866, ICC=0·027). The caregiver burden scale did not differ between groups either (adjusted mean CBS 45·5 in the intervention group versus 45·0 in the control group, difference 0·5 points [95% CI -1·7 to 2·7], p value=0·660, ICC=0·013). Patient and caregiver costs were similar in both groups (length of the initial stroke admission and associated costs were £13,127 for the intervention group and £12,471 for the control group; adjusted mean difference £1243 [95% CI -1533 to 4019]; p value=0·380). Probabilities of cost-effectiveness based on QALYs were low.

In a large scale, robust evaluation, results from this study have shown no differences between the LSCTC and usual care on any of the assessed outcomes. The immediate period after stroke might not be the ideal time to deliver structured caregiver training.

Medical Research Council.

Improving Housing with Care Choices for Older People: An Evaluation of Extra Care Housing
Netten A, Darton R, Bäumker T, et al Personal Social Services Research Unit and Housing Learning and Improvement Network, London. 2011

This report summarises the results of a
Department of Health (DH) funded evaluation
of 19 extra care housing schemes that opened
between April 2006 and November 2008, and
which received capital funding from the
Department‘s Extra Care Housing Fund. Key
findings on delivering outcomes, costs and costeffectiveness, and improving choice were that:
Delivering person-centred outcomes
• Outcomes were generally very positive, with
most people reporting a good quality of life.
• A year after moving in most residents enjoyed
a good social life, valued the social activities
and events on offer, and had made new friends.
• People had a range of functional abilities
on moving in and were generally less
dependent than people moving into
residential care, particularly with respect
to cognitive impairment.
• One-quarter of residents had died by the
end of the study, and about a third of
those who died were able to end their lives
in the scheme.
• Of those who were still alive at the end of
the study, over 90 per cent remained in
the scheme.
• For most of those followed-up, physical
functional ability appeared to improve or
remain stable over the first 18 months
compared with when they moved in.
Although more residents had a lower level
of functioning at 30 months, more than a
half had still either improved or remained
stable by 30 months. • Cognitive functioning remained stable for the
majority of those followed-up, but at 30
months a larger proportion had improved
than had deteriorated.
Costs and cost-effectiveness
• Accommodation, housing management and
living expenses accounted for approximately
60 per cent of total cost. The costs of social
care and health care showed most variability
across schemes, partly because most detail
was collected about these elements.
• Comparisons with a study of remodelling
appear to support the conclusion that new
building is not inherently more expensive than
remodelling, when like is compared with like.
• Higher costs were associated with higher
levels of physical and cognitive impairment
and with higher levels of well-being.
• Combined care and housing management
arrangements were associated with lower costs.
• When matched with a group of equivalent
people moving into residential care, costs
were the same or lower in extra care housing.
• Better outcomes and similar or lower costs
indicate that extra care housing appears to
be a cost-effective alternative for people with
the same characteristics who currently move
into residential care.
Improving choice
• People had generally made a positive choice
to move into extra care housing, with high
expectations focused on improved social
life, in particular. • Alternative forms of housing such as extra
care housing are seen as providing a means of
encouraging downsizing, but although larger
villages appeal to a wider range of residents,
different expectations among residents can
create tensions and misunderstandings
about the nature of the accommodation and
services being offered.
• While the results support the use of extra care
housing as an alternative to residential care
homes for some individuals, levels of supply
are relatively low.
• Funding of extra care housing is complex and,
particularly in the current financial climate, it is important that incentives that deliver a
cost-effective return on investment in local
care economies are in place if this is to be a
viable option for older people in the future.
• More capital investment and further
development of marketing strategies are
needed if extra care housing is to be made
more available and more appealing to
more able residents. Without continuing
to attract a wide range of residents,
including those with few or no care and
support needs as well as those with higher
levels of need, extra care housing may
become more like residential care and lose
its distinctiveness.

Improving Housing with Care Choices for Older People: Evaluation of the Extra Care Housing Initiative
Darton R, Bäumker T, Callaghan L, et al Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent. 2011

The Personal Social Service Research Unit (PSSRU) and Housing LIN have jointly published the evaluation of the Department of Health’s Extra Care Housing Fund.

Shared Lives Costs and Effectiveness (SLiCE)
Brookes N Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent. 2018

In the Shared Lives model, an adult who needs support and/or accommodation moves in with or regularly visits an approved Shared Lives carer after they have been matched for compatibility. At present there is a limited evidence base for Shared Lives. The proposed research will mean that a thorough exploration of how successful the model is and whether it represents a good investment can be explored. An outcome evaluation will include: collection of data including service user characteristics, risks and needs, case management information, service use, quality of life and well-being measures; data collection from a comparison group of Shared Lives-suitable, non-participating service users; interviews with service users and Shared Lives carers focusing on outcomes; and use of other administrative and survey data.

NIHR School for
Social Care Research