BACKGROUND: Discharge planning is a routine feature of health systems in many countries that aims to reduce delayed discharge from hospital, and improve the co-ordination of services following discharge from hospital and reduce the risk of hospital readmission. This is the fifth update of the original review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of planning the discharge of individual patients moving from hospital.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers on 20 April 2021. We searched two other databases up to 31 March 2020. We also conducted reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials that compared an individualised discharge plan with routine discharge that was not tailored to individual participants. Participants were hospital inpatients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data analysis and quality assessment using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. We grouped studies by older people with a medical condition, people recovering from surgery, and studies that recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When combining outcome data it was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes, we summarised the reported results for each trial in the text.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials (12,242 participants), four new trials included in this update. The majority of trials (N = 30) recruited participants with a medical diagnosis, average age range 60 to 84 years; four of these trials also recruited participants who were in hospital for a surgical procedure. Participants allocated to discharge planning and who were in hospital for a medical condition had a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay (MD - 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.33 to - 0.12; 11 trials, 2113 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a relative reduction in readmission to hospital over an average of three months follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; 17 trials, 5126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in participant's health status (mortality at three- to nine-month follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 8 trials, 2721 participants; moderate certainty) functional status and psychological health measured by a range of measures, 12 studies, 2927 participants; low certainty evidence). There was some evidence that satisfaction might be increased for patients (7 trials), caregivers (1 trial) or healthcare professionals (2 trials) (very low certainty evidence). The cost of a structured discharge plan compared with routine discharge is uncertain (7 trials recruiting 7873 participants with a medical condition; very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A structured discharge plan that is tailored to the individual patient probably brings about a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay and readmissions to hospital for older people with a medical condition, may slightly increase patient satisfaction with healthcare received. The impact on patient health status and healthcare resource use or cost to the health service is uncertain.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of hospitalised older adults experience hospital-associated functional decline. Exercise interventions that promote in-hospital activity may prevent deconditioning and thereby maintain physical function during hospitalisation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise interventions for acutely hospitalised older medical inpatients on functional ability, quality of life (QoL), participant global assessment of success and adverse events compared to usual care or a sham-control intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was May 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating an in-hospital exercise intervention in people aged 65 years or older admitted to hospital with a general medical condition. We excluded people admitted for elective reasons or surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. independence with activities of daily living; 2. functional mobility; 3. new incidence of delirium during hospitalisation; 4. QoL; 5. number of falls during hospitalisation; 6. medical deterioration during hospitalisation and 7. participant global assessment of success. Our minor outcomes were 8. death during hospitalisation; 9. musculoskeletal injuries during hospitalisation; 10. hospital length of stay; 11. new institutionalisation at hospital discharge; 12. hospital readmission and 13. walking performance. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each major outcome. We categorised exercise interventions as: rehabilitation-related activities (interventions designed to increase physical activity or functional recovery, but did not follow a specified exercise protocol); structured exercise (interventions that included an exercise intervention protocol but did not include progressive resistance training); and progressive resistance exercise (interventions that included an element of progressive resistance training).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies (nine rehabilitation-related activity interventions, six structured exercise interventions and nine progressive resistance exercise interventions) with 7511 participants. All studies compared exercise interventions to usual care; two studies, in addition to usual care, used sham interventions. Mean ages ranged from 73 to 88 years, and 58% of participants were women. Several studies were at high risk of bias. The most common domain assessed at high risk of bias was measurement of the outcome, and five studies (21%) were at high risk of bias arising from the randomisation process. Exercise may have no clinically important effect on independence in activities of daily living at discharge from hospital compared to controls (16 studies, 5174 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies used the Barthel Index (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing greater independence). Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 42 to 96 points, and independence in activities of daily living was 1.8 points better (0.43 worse to 4.12 better) with exercise compared to controls. The minimally clinical important difference (MCID) is estimated to be 11 points. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on functional mobility at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (8 studies, 2369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three studies used the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) (scale: 0 to 12, higher scores representing better function) to measure functional mobility. Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 points on the SPPB, and the estimated effect of the exercise interventions was 0.78 points better (0.02 worse to 1.57 better). A change of 1 point on the SPPB represents an MCID. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of delirium during hospitalisation compared to controls (7 trials, 2088 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of delirium during hospitalisation was 88/1091 (81 per 1000) in the control group compared with 70/997 (73 per 1000; range 47 to 114) in the exercise group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41). Exercise interventions may result in a small clinically unimportant improvement in QoL at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (4 studies, 875 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mean QoL on the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) visual analogue scale (VAS) (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing better QoL) ranged between 48.9 and 64.7 in the control group at discharge from the hospital, and QoL was 6.04 points better (0.9 better to 11.18 better) with exercise. A change of 10 points on the EQ-5D VAS represents an MCID. No studies measured participant global assessment of success. Exercise interventions did not affect the risk of falls during hospitalisation (moderate-certainty evidence). The incidence of falls was 31/899 (34 per 1000) in the control group compared with 31/888 (34 per 1000; range 20 to 57) in the exercise group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.65). We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of medical deterioration during hospitalisation (very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of medical deterioration in the control group was 101/1417 (71 per 1000) compared with 96/1313 (73 per 1000; range 44 to 120) in the exercise group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68). Subgroup analyses by different intervention categories and by the use of a sham intervention were not meaningfully different from the main analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise may make little difference to independence in activities of daily living or QoL, but probably does not result in more falls in older medical inpatients. We are uncertain about the effect of exercise on functional mobility, incidence of delirium and medical deterioration. Certainty of evidence was limited by risk of bias and inconsistency. Future primary research on the effect of exercise on acute hospitalisation could focus on more consistent and uniform reporting of participant's characteristics including their baseline level of functional ability, as well as exercise dose, intensity and adherence that may provide an insight into the reasons for the observed inconsistencies in findings.
Within patient-centered care (PCC), the individual is viewed as an active member of the healthcare team. While there has been recent interest in conducting systematic reviews to examine the effectiveness of PCC interventions, various studies fall short in explaining the type of intervention most effective in producing significant changes to desired outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the characteristics of PCC interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing the quality of care and performance of self-care behaviours. A systematic review of 40 studies that addressed PCC interventions, included samples over the age of 18 years, and were published between 1995 and 2014 was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to delineate study, participant, and intervention characteristics. Results suggest PCC-based interventions are not effective when delivered to individuals living with chronic illnesses.
IMPORTANCE: Improving the quality of health care for general medical patients is a priority, but the organization of general medical ward care receives less scrutiny than the management of specific diseases. Optimizing teams' performance improves patient outcomes in other settings, and interdisciplinary practice is a major target for improvement efforts. However, the effect of interdisciplinary team interventions on general medical ward care has not been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of objective patient outcomes used in studies of general medical ward interdisciplinary team care, and to evaluate the performance of interdisciplinary interventions against them.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2013, for interdisciplinary team care interventions in adult general medical wards using an objective patient outcome measure. Reference lists of included articles were also searched. The last search was conducted on January 29, 2014, and the narrative and statistical analysis was conducted through December 1, 2014. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group's tool.
FINDINGS: Thirty of 6934 articles met the selection criteria. The studies included 66 548 patients, with a mean age of 63 years. Nineteen of 30 (63%) studies reported length of stay, readmission, or mortality rate as their primary outcome, or did not specify the primacy of their outcomes. The most commonly reported objective patient outcomes were length of stay (23 of 30 [77%]), complications of care (10 of 30 [33%]), in-hospital mortality rate (8 of 30 [27%]), and 30-day readmission rate (8 of 30 [27%]). Of 23 interventions, 16 (70%) had no effect on length of stay, 12 of 15 (80%) did not reduce readmissions, and 14 of 15 (93%) did not affect mortality. Five of 10 (50%) interventions reduced complications of care. In an exploratory quantitative analysis, the interventions did not consistently reduce the relative risk of early readmission or early mortality, or the weighted mean difference in length of stay. All studies had a medium or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current evidence suggests that interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards have little effect on traditional measures of health care quality. Complications of care or preventable adverse events may merit inclusion as quality indicators for general medical wards. Future study should clarify how best to implement interdisciplinary team care interventions and establish quality metrics that are credible to both health care professionals and patients in this setting.
Impact of inpatient geriatric consultation teams: a review and meta-analysis (M.D. Deschodt): Background: This review and meta-analysis aims to determine the impact of inpatient geriatric consultation teams. Methods: An electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and Invert was performed. Three independent reviewers selected prospective cohort studies assessing functional status, readmission rate, mortality or length of stay in adults aged 60 years or older. Twelve studies evaluating 4,546 participants in six countries were identified. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Results: The individual studies show that an inpatient geriatric consultation team intervention has favorable effects on functional status, readmission and mortality rate. None of the studies found an effect on the length of the hospital stay. The meta-analysis found a beneficial effect of the intervention with regard to mortality rate at 6 months (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85) and 8 months (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.85) after hospital discharge. Conclusion: inpatient geriatric consultation team interventions have a significant impact on mortality rate at 6 and 8 months postdischarge, but have no significant impact on functional status, readmission or length of stay. The reason for the lack of effect on these latter outcomes may be due to insufficient statistical power or the insensitivity of the measuring method for, for example, functional status. The questions of to whom IGCT intervention should be targeted and what can be achieved remain unanswered. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and intensive home follow-up after hospital discharge: the Transitional Care Bridge randomized clinical trial (B.M. Buurman): Background: Acute hospitalization is a hazardous event for older people. Over 30% of older people experience a decline in Activities of Daily Living and another 20% dies within six months postdischarge. We aimed to study whether an intervention, consisting of comprehensive geriatric assessment and intensive home follow-up after discharge reduced functional decline and mortality in acutely hospitalized older patients. Methods: a randomized clinical trial was set up in patients 65 years and older, acutely admitted for at least 48 hours to internal medicine of three participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Risk for functional decline was assessed with the Identification of Senior at Risk - Hospitalized patients (score (greater-than or equal to)2). Eligible patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated program to the intervention or control group. Hospital care was equal in both groups, and of a comprehensive geriatric assessment at admission by the hospitals geriatric consultation team. The intervention group was visited in the hospital by a community care nurse who guided the transition and performed five home visits, including a visit two days after discharge. The primary outcome was functional decline six months after discharge, defined as a loss of ADLs at six months compared to ADL functioning two weeks before admission, and mortality. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Lineair regression analysis was performed to calculate mean decline in ADLs. Logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate differences in mortality. Results: 674 patients were included with 337 allocated to the intervention group and 337 to the control group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced and showed no differences between the two groups. Mean age of the participants was 80 years in both groups and 67% lived independently before admission. We did not observe differences in functional decline between the intervention and control group (mean decline 0.22 vs 0.12, p = 0.55).We did observe a significant lower 30-day mortality in the intervention group compared to controls (11.3% vs 18.4%, p = 0.01). Conclusion: a transitional care program targeted at patients at high risk for functional decline did not reduce functional decline, but did reduce 30-day mortality. A transitional care program seems to improve patient safety in a vulnerable period shortly after hospital discharge. Specialist geriatric medical assessment for patients discharged from hospital acute assessment units: randomised controlled trial (S.P. Conroy): Background: To evaluate the effect of specialist geriatric medical management on the outcomes of at risk older people discharged from acute medical assessment units (AMU). Methods: Individual patient RCT comparing intervention with usual care in two hospitals in Nottingham and Leicester, UK. 433 patients aged 70 or over who were discharged within 72 hours of attending an AMU and at risk of decline as indicated by a score of (greater-than or equal to)2 on the Identification of Seniors At Risk tool. The intervention consisted of an assessment made on the AMU and further outpatient management by specialist physicians in geriatric medicine, including advice and support to primary care services. The primary outcome was the number of days spent at home (for those admitted from home) or days spent in the same care home (if admitted from a care home) in the 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were determined at 90 days and included mortality, institutionalisation, dependency, mental wellbeing, quality of life, and health and social care resource use. Results: The two groups were well matched for baseline characteristics, and withdrawal rates were similar in both groups (5%). Mean days at home over 90 days' follow-up were 80.2 days in the control group and 79.7 in the intervention group. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means was -4.6 to 3.6 days (P = 0.31). No significant differences were found for any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: This specialist geriatric medical intervention applied to an at risk population of older people attending and being discharged from AMU had no effect on patients' outcomes or subsequent use of secondary care or long term care. Synthesis of the evidence across the three geriatric care models: towards a European research agenda (S.E. de Rooij): Three different interventions have been presented and discussed and they all show some overlap, and real differences between them. Also the outcomes vary between the studies. In this talk on synthesis of evidence these common themes will be discussed and a European research and implementation agenda will be set. The topics that will be covered are: - What outcomes should we focus on in these hospital-based interventions and how can we measure them? - Why is it so difficult to achieve improvement in functioning? - What research methodology is appropriate for these kind of studies on complex interventions? - Are the efforts to improve these geriatric care models sufficient and how can you measure these? - What are the components that are effective and cost-effective and we could start to implement? - How can we collaborate on a European level and set a research agenda on this topic?
OBJECTIVE: To determine effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation interventions with older deconditioned adults following an acute hospital admission. Data sources: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 14 electronic databases from their inception to February 2014. Review methods: Studies selected concerned inpatient rehabilitation, single or multi-factorial interventions, conducted by any discipline, where participants were aged 55 years or older and 50% or more could be classed as deconditioned. Studies were excluded if they focused on acute onset of disability conditions. Data were extracted using the McMaster Quantitative Review Form and appraised using the PEDro Rating Scale. RESULTS: No RCTs were found that specifically addressed the aim. Four studies were reviewed describing multi-disciplinary rehabilitation programs that aimed to reduce functional decline in older adults, with inconsistent findings. However, in two studies participants showed a positive improvement in completing basic activities of daily living (ADL) following multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, one at discharge (median change score Intervention (I)0.23:Control (C)0.15,<i>P</i>=<0.001) and one at 12-months post discharge (I-48.4%: C-25.4% (P‹0.001) Relative Risk (RR)1.90 95%CI: 1.15-3.16 (reviewer calculated)). Discharge to home was also measured in two studies with participants in the intervention groups having a higher probability of going home (I-55.6%: C-36.7 %, RR 1.52 95%CI: 1.02-2.26 (reviewer calculated) and I-60%: C-20%, RR 3.00 95%CI: 1.16-7.73(reviewer calculated)). CONCLUSION: No RCTs have been conducted to examine the effectiveness of specific recondition-ing interventions in rehabilitation, and there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of geriatric rehabilitation programs to reduce functional decline in older adults who are deconditioned. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There has been a move to improve nutritional status in malnourished patients through the use of multimodal interventions (MI). There are currently no systematic reviews that have examined their effectiveness. This analysis aimed to examine the effects on nutritional, clinical, functional and patient-centred outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis using Cochrane methodology.
RESULTS: 15 studies were included in the analysis, 13 comparing MI with usual care and 2 comparing MI with a nutrition intervention alone. Quality of studies varied and studies reported few relevant outcomes. Only 3 outcomes were compatible with meta-analysis; weight, mortality and length of stay (LOS). No statistically significant differences between groups were found. Narrative review was inconclusive. There was no evidence of benefit in the intervention groups in relation to body composition, functional status or quality of life (QoL). Intervention groups appeared to show a trend towards increased energy and protein intake however data was provided by only 2 studies (301 participants).
CONCLUSIONS: No conclusive evidence of benefit for MI on any of the reviewed outcomes was found. Well designed, high quality trials addressing the impact of MI on relevant nutritional, functional and clinical outcomes are required.
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients admitted to dedicated wards has proven to be beneficial, but the impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment delivered by mobile inpatient geriatric consultation teams remains unclear. This review and meta-analysis aims to determine the impact of inpatient geriatric consultation teams on clinical outcomes of interest in older adults.
METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and Invert for English, French and Dutch articles was performed from inception to June 2012. Three independent reviewers selected prospective cohort studies assessing functional status, readmission rate, mortality or length of stay in adults aged 60 years or older. Twelve studies evaluating 4,546 participants in six countries were identified. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.
RESULTS: The individual studies show that an inpatient geriatric consultation team intervention has favorable effects on functional status, readmission and mortality rate. None of the studies found an effect on the length of the hospital stay. The meta-analysis found a beneficial effect of the intervention with regard to mortality rate at 6 months (relative risk 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.85) and 8 months (relative risk 0.51; confidence interval 0.31 to 0.85) after hospital discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient geriatric consultation team interventions have a significant impact on mortality rate at 6 and 8 months postdischarge, but have no significant impact on functional status, readmission or length of stay. The reason for the lack of effect on these latter outcomes may be due to insufficient statistical power or the insensitivity of the measuring method for, for example, functional status. The questions of to whom IGCT intervention should be targeted and what can be achieved remain unanswered and require further research.TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42011001420 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
Discharge planning is a routine feature of health systems in many countries that aims to reduce delayed discharge from hospital, and improve the co-ordination of services following discharge from hospital and reduce the risk of hospital readmission. This is the fifth update of the original review.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effectiveness of planning the discharge of individual patients moving from hospital.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers on 20 April 2021. We searched two other databases up to 31 March 2020. We also conducted reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised trials that compared an individualised discharge plan with routine discharge that was not tailored to individual participants. Participants were hospital inpatients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently undertook data analysis and quality assessment using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. We grouped studies by older people with a medical condition, people recovering from surgery, and studies that recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When combining outcome data it was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes, we summarised the reported results for each trial in the text.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 33 trials (12,242 participants), four new trials included in this update. The majority of trials (N = 30) recruited participants with a medical diagnosis, average age range 60 to 84 years; four of these trials also recruited participants who were in hospital for a surgical procedure. Participants allocated to discharge planning and who were in hospital for a medical condition had a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay (MD - 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.33 to - 0.12; 11 trials, 2113 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a relative reduction in readmission to hospital over an average of three months follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; 17 trials, 5126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in participant's health status (mortality at three- to nine-month follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 8 trials, 2721 participants; moderate certainty) functional status and psychological health measured by a range of measures, 12 studies, 2927 participants; low certainty evidence). There was some evidence that satisfaction might be increased for patients (7 trials), caregivers (1 trial) or healthcare professionals (2 trials) (very low certainty evidence). The cost of a structured discharge plan compared with routine discharge is uncertain (7 trials recruiting 7873 participants with a medical condition; very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
A structured discharge plan that is tailored to the individual patient probably brings about a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay and readmissions to hospital for older people with a medical condition, may slightly increase patient satisfaction with healthcare received. The impact on patient health status and healthcare resource use or cost to the health service is uncertain.
