Participation in Hospital in the Home for patients in inner metropolitan Sydney: implications for access and equity
Jude Page A E , Elizabeth Comino B , Mandy Burgess C , John Cullen C D and Elizabeth Harris A BA Health Equity Research and Development Unit, Sydney Local Health District, PO Box 374, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
B Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: E.Comino@unsw.edu.au; E.harris@unsw.edu.au
C Sydney Local Health District, Box M30, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. Email: mandy.burgess@health.nsw.gov.au
D University of Sydney Clinical School, Concord Hospital, Hospital Road, Concord, NSW 2139, Australia. Email: john.cullen@health.nsw.gov.au
E Corresponding author. Email: jude.page@unsw.edu.au
Australian Health Review 42(5) 557-562 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18117
Submitted: 31 October 2017 Accepted: 6 June 2018 Published: 20 August 2018
Journal compilation © AHHA 2018 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to identify whether the Hospital in the Home (HITH) program was taken up equitably by eligible patients in relation to their age, sex, country of birth, place of residence and primary diagnosis.
Methods This study presents results of a descriptive analysis of the administrative records of 3552 people with specific conditions who met the study criteria of potential eligibility to HITH and resided within the health district boundary.
Results Systematic differences were found for participation in HITH and in-patient care according to sex, language spoken at home and socioeconomic status based on place of residence. This suggests that people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds who speak English at home were more likely to participate in and benefit from HITH. Tailored interventions were identified as a potential way to reduce the gap in access to quality health care for women and people who speak a language other than English at home. If HITH is the optimum treatment available, then these differences could be considered potentially avoidable and unfair.
Conclusion Data analysis through an equity lens can effectively identify who is accessing health services and who is missing out. Further analysis is required to understand patient and system barriers to accessing HITH.
What is known about the topic? Advances in medical and surgical treatments and pharmaceuticals reduce the need for in-patient hospitalisation. For some conditions, home-based treatment is safer, cheaper and preferable to the patient and carers, particularly some older people who may experience deteriorating cognitive and physical functioning related to hospitalisation. It is well known that health and access to health care is not equally distributed in society.
What does this paper add? This study represents the first effort to quantitatively evaluate differences in patterns of participation in HITH related to socioeconomic and language characteristics. There are underutilised opportunities for improved participation in HITH by identifying who is not accessing programs at a comparable rate and therefore not benefitting from optimal health services. By exploring why this may be occurring at an individual and system level, we can be more informed to address these reasons and achieve better health and social outcomes.
What are the implications for practitioners? It is important to consider both consumer and service provider views in shaping current and future service models. Comprehensive assessment of support needs to participate in HITH for patients and carers, as well as communicating potential benefits in ways patients understand, can improve participation and satisfaction, reduce health costs and improve health outcomes.
References
[1] Caplan GA. Does ‘Hospital in the Home’ treatment prevent delirium? Aging Health 2008; 4 69–74.| Does ‘Hospital in the Home’ treatment prevent delirium?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Deloitte Access Economics. Economic analysis of Hospital in the Home (HITH). 2011. Available at: http://auspharmacist.net.au/documents/hospitalhome.pdf [verified 5 May 17].
[3] Caplan GA, Sulaiman NS, Mangin DA, Ricaudab NA, Wilson AD, Barclay L. A meta-analysis of ‘hospital in the home’. Med J Aust 2012; 197 512–19.
| A meta-analysis of ‘hospital in the home’.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Admitted patient care 2015–16: Australian hospital statistics. Health Services Series no.75. Catalogue no. HSE 185. Canberra: AIHW; 2017.
[5] DeWalt DA, Berkman ND, Sheridan S. Literacy and health outcomes a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19 1228–39.
| Literacy and health outcomes a systematic review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Hsu R. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6 35
| Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Levesque J-F, Harris M, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health 2013; 12 18
| Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Mackenzie M, Conway E, Hastings A, Munro M, O’Donnell C. Is ‘candidacy’ a useful concept for understanding journeys through public services? A critical interpretive literature synthesis. Soc Policy Adm 2013; 47 806–25.
| Is ‘candidacy’ a useful concept for understanding journeys through public services? A critical interpretive literature synthesis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australia’s Health 2014. Contract No. 14. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.
[10] Levy H, Janke A. Health literacy and access to care. J Health Commun 2016; 21 43–50.
| Health literacy and access to care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-economic indexes for areas. 2011. Available at: www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa [verified 6 July 2018].
[12] Manthorpe J, Iliffe S, Moriarty J, Cornes M, Clough R, Bright L, Rapaport J, OPRSI ‘We are not blaming anyone, but if we don’t know about amenities, we cannot seek them out’: Black and minority older people’s views on the quality of local health and personal social services in England. Aging and Society 2009; 29 93–113.
| ‘We are not blaming anyone, but if we don’t know about amenities, we cannot seek them out’: Black and minority older people’s views on the quality of local health and personal social services in England.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Rao DV, Warburton J, Bartlett H. Health and social needs of older Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: issues and implications. Australas J Ageing 2006; 25 174–9.
| Health and social needs of older Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: issues and implications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Agudelo-Suárez AA, Gil-González D, Vives-Cases C, Love JG, Wimpenny P, Ronda-Pérez E. A metasynthesis of qualitative studies regarding opinions and perceptions about barriers and determinants of health services’ accessibility in economic migrants. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12 461
| A metasynthesis of qualitative studies regarding opinions and perceptions about barriers and determinants of health services’ accessibility in economic migrants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Merrell J, Kinsella F, Murphy F, Philpin S, Ali A. Accessibility and equity of health and social care services: exploring the views and experiences of Bangladeshi carers in South Wales, UK. Health Soc Care Community 2006; 14 197–205.
| Accessibility and equity of health and social care services: exploring the views and experiences of Bangladeshi carers in South Wales, UK.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf M. The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 S19–26.
| The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Johnson A, Sandford J. Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home: systematic review. Health Educ Res 2005; 20 423–9.
| Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home: systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Korda RJ, Butler J, Clements M, Kunitz SJ. Differential impacts of health care in Australia: trend analysis of socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable mortality. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36 157–65.
| Differential impacts of health care in Australia: trend analysis of socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable mortality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
