Impact and costs of home-based trial of void compared with the day care setting.

Aims: This paper presents the relative merits and comparative costs of conducting trial of void using Hospital-In-The-Home vs. the Day Procedure Unit.

Background: Hospitals increasingly discharge patients with acute urinary retention with indwelling urinary catheters. For these to be removed and patients supported to return to normal urinary function, outpatient or in-home services are used. To date, the relative effectiveness and costs of Hospital-In-The-Home care and Day Procedure Unit care for trial of void have not been examined.

Design: This retrospective study used a static-group comparison design.

Methods: Hospital administrative data from 1 February 2009-30 March 2011 for patients having trial of void in the Day Procedure Unit (n = 107) and Hospital-In-The-Home (n = 163) of a tertiary hospital in Western Australia were compared in terms of patient outcomes and costs.

Results: Day Procedure Unit patients had longer wait times than Hospital-In-The-Home patients; there was no difference between the two groups for average per patient days of service or successful first trials. Hospital-In-The-Home care did not increase the overall period of care. Per patient average ward-equivalent cost in the Day Procedure Unit was A$396 higher than the Hospital-In-The-Home ward-equivalent cost. The average cost saving per patient for Hospital-In-The-Home care including trial of void cost and emergency department visits was A$117.

Conclusion: Patient outcomes from Hospital-In-The-Home trial of void in low-risk patients were comparable to those of Day Procedure Unit care and less costly. Hospital-In-The-Home care for this well-defined procedure could permit more efficient management of patient throughput.