Alternatives to hospital care: what are they and who should decide?

OBJECTIVE

To examine potential for alternatives to care in hospitals for acute admissions, and to compare the decisions about these alternatives made by clinicians with different backgrounds.

DESIGN

Standardised tool was used to identify patients who could potentially be treated in an alternative form of care. Information about such patients was assessed by three panels of clinicians: general practitioners without experience of general practitioner beds, general practitioners with experience of general practitioner beds, and consultants.

SETTING

One hospital for acute admissions in a rural area of the South and West region of England.

SUBJECTS

Of 620 patients admitted to specialties of general medicine and care of the elderly, details of 112 were assessed by panels.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of hospitalised patients who could have received alternative care and identification of most appropriate alternative form of care.

RESULTS

Both general practitioner panels estimated that between 51 and 89 of the hospitalised patients could have received alternative care (equivalent to 8-14% of all admissions). Consultants estimated that between 25 and 55 patients could have had alternative care (5.5-9% of all admissions). General practitioner bed and urgent outpatient appointment were the main alternatives chosen by all three panels.

CONCLUSION

About 10% of admissions to general hospital might be suitable for alternative forms of care. Doctors with different backgrounds made similar overall assessments of most appropriate forms of care.