Service use and costs for people with long-term neurological conditions in the first year following discharge from in-patient neuro-rehabilitation: a longitudinal cohort study.
BACKGROUND
Knowledge of the configuration and costs of community rehabilitation and support for people with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) is needed to inform future service development and resource allocation. In a multicentre prospective cohort study evaluating community service delivery during the year post-discharge from in-patient neuro-rehabilitation, a key objective was to determine service use, costs, and predictors of these costs.


METHODS
Patients consecutively admitted over one year to all nine London specialised (Level 1) in-patient neuro-rehabilitation units were recruited on discharge. They or their carers completed postal/web-based questionnaires at discharge and six and twelve months later, providing demographic data and measures of impairment, disability, service needs and provision. This paper describes health and social care service use, informal care and associated costs. Regression models using non-parametric boot-strapping identified predictors of costs over time.


RESULTS
Overall, 152 patients provided consistent data. Mean formal service costs fell significantly from £13,290 (sd £19,369) during the first six months to £9,335 (sd £19,036) from six-twelve months, (t = 2.35, P<0.05), mainly due to declining health service use. At six months, informal care was received on average for 8.2 hours/day, mean cost £14,615 (sd 23,305), comprising 52% of overall care costs. By twelve months, it had increased to 8.8 hours per day, mean cost £15,468 (sd £25,534), accounting for 62% of overall care costs. Being younger and more disabled predicted higher formal care costs, explaining 32% and 30% of the variation in costs respectively at six and twelve months.


CONCLUSIONS
Community services for people with LTNCs carry substantial costs that shift from health to social care over time, increasing the burden on families. Prioritising rehabilitation services towards those in greatest need could limit access to others needing on-going support to promote their independence and reduce their reliance on families. This argues for greater investment in future rehabilitation services.
King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, London, United Kingdom.
Diana
D
Jackson
King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Health Services and Population Research Department, London, United Kingdom.
Paul
P
McCrone
King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Health Services and Population Research Department, London, United Kingdom.
Iris
I
Mosweu
AUT University, School of Public Health and Psychosocial Studies and School of Rehabilitation and Occupational Studies, Centre for Person Centred Research, Auckland, New Zealand.
Richard
R
Siegert
King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, London, United Kingdom; Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Lynne
L
Turner-Stokes
D000328:Adult; D015331:Cohort Studies; D006233:Persons with Disabilities; D005260:Female; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006296:Health Services; D006801:Humans; D008131:London / Q000453:epidemiology; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009422:Nervous System Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000534:rehabilitation; D010351:Patient Discharge; D013997:Time Factors