Objectives To compare treatment of acute illness at home and in hospital, assessing safety, effect on geriatric complications, and patient/carer satisfaction. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting A tertiary referral hospital affiliated with the University of New South Wales. Participants 100 patients (69% older than 65 years) with a variety of acute conditions, who were assessed in the emergency department as requiring admission to hospital. Interventions Patients were allocated at random to be treated by a hospital‐in‐the‐ home (HIH) service in their usual residence or to be admitted to hospital. Main outcome measures Geriatric complications (confusion, falls, urinary incontinence or retention, faecal incontinence or constipation, phlebitis and pressure areas), patient/carer satisfaction, adverse events, and death. Results There was a lower incidence of confusion (0 v. 20.4% [95% Cl, 9.1%–31.7%); P=0.0005), urinary complications (incontinence or retention) (2.0% [95% Cl, –1.8%, 5.8%) v. 16.3% [95% Cl, 6.0%, 26.6%); P=0.01), and bowel complications (incontinence or constipation) (0 v. 22.5% [95% Cl, 10.7%, 34.1%); P=0.0003) among HIH‐treated patients. No significant difference in number of adverse events and deaths (to 28 days after discharge) in the two groups was found (although numbers were small). Patient and carer satisfaction was significantly higher in the HIH group. Conclusions Home treatment appears to provide a safe alternative to hospitalisation for selected patients, and may be preferable for some older patients. We found high levels of both patient and carer satisfaction with home treatment.

home rehabilitation for frail elderly after acute hospitalisation is a viable option for selected patients and is associated with a lower risk of delirium, greater patient satisfaction, lower cost and more efficient hospital bed use.

OBJECTIVE: To test the cost effectiveness of Hospital in the Home compared to hospital admission for acute medical conditions. METHOD: Randomised controlled trial at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, from October 1995 to February, 1997; 100 patients with acute medical conditions admitted through the Emergency Department. RESULTS: The Hospital in the Home (HITH) group costs per separation ($1,764, CI95%$1,416 –$2,111, n=50) were significantly lower (p < 0.0001, Mann–Whitney U –Wilcoxon Rank Sum) than the control group hospital separation ($3,614, CI 95%$2,881.37 –$4,347.27, n=47) with no significant difference in clinical outcomes, and comparable or better user satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Given the favourable clinical outcomes the HITH model produces at a lower cost, the cost–effectiveness of the care mode is high, and the allocative efficiency favourable. IMPLICATIONS: As a care model and critical pathway, HITH offers hospitals real bed day savings that can either be used to rationalise resource usage for a given level of activity, or increase throughput.

This study demonstrates that changes in care provision that result in shorter LOS and greater cost effectiveness may better meet patients' needs than existing systems.