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: Improving mobility outcomes after hip fracture is key to recovery. Possible strategies include gait training, exercise and muscle stimulation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions aimed at improving mobility and physical functioning after hip fracture surgery in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trial registers and reference lists, to March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing mobility strategies after hip fracture surgery. Eligible strategies aimed to improve mobility and included care programmes, exercise (gait, balance and functional training, resistance/strength training, endurance, flexibility, three-dimensional (3D) exercise and general physical activity) or muscle stimulation. Intervention was compared with usual care (in-hospital) or with usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit (post-hospital).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Members of the review author team independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the assessment time point closest to four months for in-hospital studies, and the time point closest to the end of the intervention for post-hospital studies. Critical outcomes were mobility, walking speed, functioning, health-related quality of life, mortality, adverse effects and return to living at pre-fracture residence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 4059 participants from 17 countries. On average, participants were 80 years old and 80% were women. The median number of study participants was 81 and all trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more domains. Most trials excluded people with cognitive impairment (70%), immobility and/or medical conditions affecting mobility (72%). In-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Eighteen trials (1433 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care) in hospitals. Overall, such strategies may lead to a moderate, clinically-meaningful increase in mobility (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.96; 7 studies, 507 participants; low-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed (CI crosses zero so does not rule out a lack of effect (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.37; 6 studies, 360 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to short-term (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.30; 6 studies, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.12; 2 studies, 133 participants; low-certainty evidence), adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.11; 4 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), or return to pre-fracture residence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; 2 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mobility strategies improve functioning or health-related quality of life as the certainty of evidence was very low. Gait, balance and functional training probably causes a moderate improvement in mobility (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.06; 6 studies, 463 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in effects on mobility for resistance training. No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes. Post-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Twenty-two trials (2626 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit) in the post-hospital setting. Mobility strategies lead to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; 7 studies, 761 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed compared to control (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29; 14 studies, 1067 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies lead to a small, non-clinically meaningful increase in functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; 9 studies, 936 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably lead to a slight increase in quality of life that may not be clinically meaningful (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.29; 10 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies probably make little or no difference to short-term mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.06; 8 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to long-term mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 4 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence) or adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (95% CI includes a large reduction and large increase, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving gait, balance and functional exercise leads to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.36; 5 studies, 621 participants; high-certainty evidence), while training classified as being primarily resistance or strength exercise may lead to a clinically meaningful increase in mobility measured using distance walked in six minutes (mean difference (MD) 55.65, 95% CI 28.58 to 82.72; 3 studies, 198 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving multiple intervention components probably leads to a substantial, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 2 studies, 104 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of aerobic training on mobility (very low-certainty evidence). No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting improvement in mobility after hip fracture may cause clinically meaningful improvement in mobility and walking speed in hospital and post-hospital settings, compared with conventional care. Interventions that include training of gait, balance and functional tasks are particularly effective. There was little or no between-group difference in the number of adverse events reported. Future trials should include long-term follow-up and economic outcomes, determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and establish effectiveness in emerging economies.
BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to acquire and practise the skills they need to carry out disease-specific medical regimens, guide changes in health behaviour and provide emotional support to enable them to control their disease. Since the 2014 update of this review, several studies have been published.
OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and respiratory-related hospital admissions. To evaluate the safety of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of respiratory-related mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of other health outcomes and healthcare utilisation. To evaluate effective characteristics of COPD self-management interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, trials registries and the reference lists of included studies up until January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials (CRTs) published since 1995. To be eligible for inclusion, self-management interventions had to include at least two intervention components and include an iterative process between participant and healthcare provider(s) in which goals were formulated and feedback was given on self-management actions by the participant.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by reaching consensus or by involving a third review author. We contacted study authors to obtain additional information and missing outcome data where possible. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), number of respiratory-related hospital admissions, respiratory-related mortality, and all-cause mortality. When appropriate, we pooled study results using random-effects modelling meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies involving 6008 participants with COPD. The follow-up time ranged from two-and-a-half to 24 months and the content of the interventions was diverse. Participants' mean age ranged from 57 to 74 years, and the proportion of male participants ranged from 33% to 98%. The post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of participants ranged from 33.6% to 57.0%. The FEV1/FVC ratio is a measure used to diagnose COPD and to determine the severity of the disease. Studies were conducted on four different continents (Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 8), Asia (n = 1), and Oceania (n = 4); with one study conducted in both Europe and Oceania). Self-management interventions likely improve HRQoL, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (lower score represents better HRQoL) with a mean difference (MD) from usual care of -2.86 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.87 to -0.85; 14 studies, 2778 participants; low-quality evidence). The pooled MD of -2.86 did not reach the SGRQ minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of four points. Self-management intervention participants were also at a slightly lower risk for at least one respiratory-related hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3263 participants; very low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one respiratory-related hospital admission over a mean of 9.75 months' follow-up was 15 (95% CI 8 to 399) for participants with high baseline risk and 26 (95% CI 15 to 677) for participants with low baseline risk. No differences were observed in respiratory-related mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 8 studies, 1572 participants ; low-quality evidence) and all-cause mortality (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 24 studies, 5719 participants; low-quality evidence). We graded the evidence to be of 'moderate' to 'very low' quality according to GRADE. All studies had a substantial risk of bias, because of lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the interventions, which is inherently impossible in a self-management intervention. In addition, risk of bias was noticeably increased because of insufficient information regarding a) non-protocol interventions, and b) analyses to estimate the effect of adhering to interventions. Consequently, the highest GRADE evidence score that could be obtained by studies was 'moderate'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Self-management interventions for people with COPD are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and a lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess respiratory-related and all-cause mortality risks were observed, which strengthens the view that COPD self-management interventions are unlikely to cause harm. By using stricter inclusion criteria, we decreased heterogeneity in studies, but also reduced the number of included studies and therefore our capacity to conduct subgroup analyses. Data were therefore still insufficient to reach clear conclusions about effective (intervention) characteristics of COPD self-management interventions. As tailoring of COPD self-management interventions to individuals is desirable, heterogeneity is and will likely remain present in self-management interventions. For future studies, we would urge using only COPD self-management interventions that include iterative interactions between participants and healthcare professionals who are competent using behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to elicit participants' motivation, confidence and competence to positively adapt their health behaviour(s) and develop skills to better manage their disease. In addition, to inform further subgroup and meta-regression analyses and to provide stronger conclusions regarding effective COPD self-management interventions, there is a need for more homogeneity in outcome measures. More attention should be paid to behavioural outcome measures and to providing more detailed, uniform and transparently reported data on self-management intervention components and BCTs. Assessment of outcomes over the long term is also recommended to capture changes in people's behaviour. Finally, information regarding non-protocol interventions as well as analyses to estimate the effect of adhering to interventions should be included to increase the quality of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people living with CHD may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with 'no exercise' control, on mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with CHD.
SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review, by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases in September 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with 'no exercise' control. The study population comprised adult men and women who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all identified references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane methods. We stratified meta-analysis by duration of follow-up: short-term (6 to 12 months); medium-term (> 12 to 36 months); and long-term ( > 3 years), and used meta-regression to explore potential treatment effect modifiers. We used GRADE for primary outcomes at 6 to 12 months (the most common follow-up time point). MAIN RESULTS: This review included 85 trials which randomised 23,430 people with CHD. This latest update identified 22 new trials (7795 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients, with a mean age ranging from 47 to 77 years. In the last decade, the median percentage of women with CHD has increased from 11% to 17%, but females still account for a similarly small percentage of participants recruited overall ( < 15%). Twenty-one of the included trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality over the last decade. The median longest follow-up time was 12 months (range 6 months to 19 years). At short-term follow-up (6 to 12 months), exercise-based CR likely results in a slight reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04; 25 trials; moderate certainty evidence), a large reduction in MI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 22 trials; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 75, 95% CI 47 to 298; high certainty evidence), and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; 14 trials; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 21; moderate certainty evidence). Exercise-based CR likely results in little to no difference in risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), CABG (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; 20 trials; high certainty evidence), and PCI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19; 13 trials; moderate certainty evidence) up to 12 months' follow-up. We are uncertain about the effects of exercise-based CR on cardiovascular hospitalisation, with a wide confidence interval including considerable benefit as well as harm (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59; low certainty evidence). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity across trials for cardiovascular hospitalisations (I2 = 53%), and of small study bias for all-cause hospitalisation, but not for all other outcomes. At medium-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 15 trials), MI (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; 12 trials), PCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 6 trials), CABG (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 9 trials), and all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 9 trials), a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality was found (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93; 5 trials). Evidence is uncertain for difference in risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 3 trials). At long-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10), exercise-based CR may result in a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; 8 trials) and MI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 10 trials). Evidence is uncertain for CABG (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.27; 4 trials), and PCI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.20; 3 trials). Meta-regression showed benefits in outcomes were independent of CHD case mix, type of CR, exercise dose, follow-up length, publication year, CR setting, study location, sample size or risk of bias. There was evidence that exercise-based CR may slightly increase HRQoL across several subscales (SF-36 mental component, physical functioning, physical performance, general health, vitality, social functioning and mental health scores) up to 12 months' follow-up; however, these may not be clinically important differences. The eight trial-based economic evaluation studies showed exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review supports the conclusions of the previous version, that exercise-based CR provides important benefits to people with CHD, including reduced risk of MI, a likely small reduction in all-cause mortality, and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation, along with associated healthcare costs, and improved HRQoL up to 12 months' follow-up. Over longer-term follow-up, benefits may include reductions in cardiovascular mortality and MI. In the last decade, trials were more likely to include females, and be undertaken in LMICs, increasing the generalisability of findings. Well-designed, adequately-reported RCTs of CR in people with CHD more representative of usual clinical practice are still needed. Trials should explicitly report clinical outcomes, including mortality and hospital admissions, and include validated HRQoL outcome measures, especially over longer-term follow-up, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 11 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.63 to -0.2). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression in people with co-morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.
MAIN RESULTS: We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.
Antecedentes: El hospital de alta temprana en el hogar es un servicio que provee tratamiento activo por profesionales de la salud en el hogar del paciente para una condición que de otra manera requeriría atención hospitalaria aguda en pacientes hospitalizados. Esta es una actualización de una revisión Cochrane. OBJETIVOS: Determinar la eficacia y el costo de la gestión de pacientes con alta temprana hospital en casa en comparación con la atención hospitalaria en el hospital. Métodos de búsqueda Se realizaron búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos hasta el 9 de enero de 2017: Registro Cochrane de Práctica Efectiva y Organización del Cuidado (EPOC), Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL y EconLit. Se realizaron búsquedas en los registros de ensayos clínicos. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos aleatorios que comparan el hospital de alta temprana en el hogar con la atención hospitalaria aguda en pacientes adultos. Se excluyeron los programas de hospitalización obstétrica, pediátrica y de salud mental en el hogar. Recopilación y análisis de datos: Se siguieron los procedimientos metodológicos estándar esperados por Cochrane y EPOC. Utilizamos el enfoque GRADE para evaluar la certeza del cuerpo de evidencia para los resultados más importantes. Se incluyeron 32 ensayos (N = 4746), seis de ellos nuevos para esta actualización, principalmente realizados en países de altos ingresos. Consideramos que la mayoría de los estudios tienen un riesgo bajo o poco claro de sesgo. La intervención fue realizada por servicios de extensión hospitalaria (17 ensayos), servicios basados en la comunidad (11 ensayos) y fue coordinada por un equipo o médico de accidente cerebrovascular en el hospital en conjunto con servicios comunitarios en cuatro ensayos. La recuperación del accidente cerebrovascularEl hospital de alta descarga en el hogar probablemente tiene poca o ninguna diferencia en la mortalidad a los tres a seis meses (razón de riesgo (RR) 0,92, intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC) 0,57 a 1,48, N = 1114, 11 ensayos, ) Y puede hacer poca o ninguna diferencia en el riesgo de reingreso hospitalario (RR 1,09, IC del 95%: 0,71 a 1,66, N = 345, 5 ensayos, evidencia de baja seguridad). El hospital en el hogar puede reducir el riesgo de vivir en un entorno institucional a los seis meses (RR 0,63, IC del 96%: 0,40 a 0,98, N = 574, 4 ensayos, evidencia de baja seguridad) y podría mejorar ligeramente la satisfacción del paciente (N = 795, (Pruebas de certeza). El hospital en casa probablemente reduce la duración hospitalaria de la estancia, ya que la evidencia de certeza moderada encontró que las personas asignadas al hospital en el hogar son dados de alta de la intervención unos siete días antes que las personas que reciben atención hospitalaria (IC del 95%: 10,19 a 3,17 días antes, N = 528 , 4 ensayos). No se sabe con certeza si el hospital en el hogar tiene un efecto sobre el costo (evidencia de certeza muy baja). Estudios que reclutan personas con una combinación de condiciones médicas El hospital de alta hospitalaria en casa probablemente tiene poca o ninguna diferencia con la mortalidad (RR 1,07; IC del 95%: 0,76 a 1,49, N = 1247, 8 ensayos, evidencia de certeza moderada). En las personas con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) no hubo información suficiente para determinar el efecto de estos dos enfoques sobre la mortalidad (RR 0,53, IC del 95%: 0,25 a 1,12, N = 496, 5 ensayos, evidencia de baja seguridad). La intervención probablemente incrementa el riesgo de reingreso hospitalario en una combinación de afecciones médicas, aunque los resultados también son compatibles sin diferencia y un aumento relativamente grande en el riesgo de reingreso (RR 1,25, IC del 95%: 0,98 a 1,58, N = 1276, 9 ensayos, evidencia de certeza moderada). El hospital de alta temprana en el hogar puede disminuir el riesgo de reingreso para las personas con EPOC (RR 0,86, IC del 95%: 0,66 a 1,13, N = 496, 5 ensayos con evidencia de baja seguridad). El hospital en el hogar puede reducir el riesgo de vivir en un entorno institucional (RR 0,69, 0,48 a 0,99, N = 484, 3 ensayos, evidencia de baja certeza). La intervención podría mejorar ligeramente la satisfacción del paciente (N = 900, evidencia de baja certeza). El efecto del hospital de alta temprana en el hogar en la duración hospitalaria de la estancia para los pacientes mayores con una mezcla de condiciones varió de una reducción de 20 días a una reducción de menos de medio día (evidencia de certeza moderada, N = 767). Estudios que no reclutaron a personas sometidas a cirugía electiva Tres estudios no informaron tasas de mortalidad más altas con el hospital en casa en comparación con la atención hospitalaria (datos no agrupados, N = 856 , Evidencia de baja seguridad, principalmente cirugía ortopédica). El hospital en casa puede conducir a poca o ninguna diferencia en la readmisión al hospital para las personas que se estaban recuperando principalmente de la cirugía ortopédica (N = 1229, evidencia de baja certeza). No pudimos establecer los efectos del hospital en el hogar sobre el riesgo de vivir en centros de atención, debido a la falta de datos. La intervención podría mejorar ligeramente la satisfacción del paciente (N = 1229, evidencia de baja certeza). Las personas que se recuperaban de la cirugía ortopédica asignada al hospital de alta temprana en el hogar fueron dados de alta de la intervención en promedio cuatro días antes de las personas asignadas a la atención hospitalaria habitual (4,44 días antes, IC del 95% 6,37 a 2,51 días antes, , Evidencia de certeza moderada). Es incierto si el hospital en el hogar tiene un efecto sobre el costo (evidencia de certidumbre muy baja). A pesar del creciente interés en el potencial de los servicios hospitalarios a domicilio de alta temprana como una alternativa menos costosa a la atención hospitalaria, esta revisión proporciona evidencia insuficiente de beneficio económico (a través de una reducción en la duración de la estancia hospitalaria) o resultados sanitarios mejorados.
ANTECEDENTES: Las personas con accidente cerebrovascular reciben convencionalmente una parte sustancial de su rehabilitación en el hospital. Se han desarrollado servicios que ofrecen a las personas en el hospital un alta temprana con rehabilitación en el hogar (descarga temprana apoyada: ESD). OBJETIVOS: Establecer si, en comparación con la atención convencional, los servicios que ofrecen a las personas hospitalizadas con ictus una política de alta temprana con rehabilitación proporcionada en la comunidad (EDS) pueden: 1) acelerar el regreso a casa; Resultados del cuidador, 3) ser aceptable satisfactorio para los pacientes y cuidadores, y 4) tener uso justificado de las implicaciones de recursos. Métodos de búsqueda Se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro de Ensayos Controlados del Grupo Cochrane de Accidentes Cerebrovasculares (Cochrane Stroke Group) (enero de 2017), en el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL 2017, Número 1) en la Biblioteca Cochrane (en enero de 2017), en MEDLINE en Ovid Ovid (buscado en enero de 2017), CINAHL en EBSCO (Índice acumulativo de enfermería y literatura afines de salud, 1937 a diciembre de 2016) y Web of Science (hasta enero de 2017). En un esfuerzo por identificar ensayos publicados, no publicados y en curso, se realizaron búsquedas en seis registros de ensayos (marzo de 2017). También realizamos el seguimiento de citas de los estudios incluidos, verificamos las listas de referencias de artículos relevantes y contactamos con los investigadores. Ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECAs) que reclutan pacientes con ictus en el hospital para recibir atención convencional o cualquier intervención de servicio que haya proporcionado rehabilitación y apoyo en un entorno comunitario con el objetivo de reducir la duración de la atención hospitalaria. Recopilación y análisis de datos: El resultado primario del paciente fue el punto final compuesto de muerte o dependencia a largo plazo registrada al final del seguimiento programado. Dos revisores examinaron los ensayos, los clasificaron sobre su elegibilidad y extrajeron los datos. Siempre que fue posible, buscamos datos estandarizados de los ensayos primarios. Se analizaron los resultados de todos los ensayos y subgrupos de pacientes y servicios, en particular si la intervención fue proporcionada por un equipo multidisciplinario coordinado (equipo coordinado de ESD) o no. Se evaluó el riesgo de sesgo para los ensayos incluidos y se utilizó GRADE para evaluar la calidad del cuerpo de pruebas. Se incluyeron 17 ensayos, en los que se reclutaron 2422 participantes, para los que se dispone actualmente de datos sobre los resultados. Los participantes tendieron a ser un grupo de ancianos seleccionados de sobrevivientes de accidente cerebrovascular con discapacidad moderada. El grupo de ESD mostró reducciones en la duración de la estancia hospitalaria equivalente a aproximadamente seis días (diferencia de medias) -5,5, intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC) -3 a -8 días, p <0,0001, evidencia de grado moderado). El resultado primario estuvo disponible para 16 ensayos (2359 participantes). En general, las odds ratios (OR) para el resultado de la muerte o la dependencia al final del seguimiento programado (mediana 6 meses, rango 3 a 12) fue OR 0,80 (IC del 95%: 0,67 a 0,95; P = 0,01; Grado de evidencia) que equivale a cinco menos resultados adversos por cada 100 pacientes que reciben ESD. Los resultados de la muerte (16 ensayos, 2116 participantes) y la muerte o que requirieron atención institucional (12 ensayos, 1664 participantes) fueron OR 1,04 (IC del 95%: 0,77 a 1,40; P = 0,81; IC 0,59 a 0,96, P = 0,02, pruebas de grado moderado), respectivamente. También se observaron pequeñas mejoras en las actividades extendidas de los participantes en las puntuaciones de la vida diaria (diferencia de medias estandarizada 0,14, IC del 95%: 0,03 a 0,25, P = 0,01, evidencia de bajo grado) y satisfacción con los servicios (OR 1,60, IC del 95% 1,08 a 2,38, P = 0,02, evidencia de bajo grado). No se observaron diferencias claras en las actividades de los participantes en las puntuaciones de la vida diaria, estado de salud subjetivo del paciente o estado de ánimo, estado de salud subjetivo, estado de ánimo o satisfacción con los servicios de los cuidadores. Encontramos evidencia de baja calidad de que el riesgo de reingreso hospitalario fue similar en el grupo de atención ESD y atención convencional (OR 1,09, IC del 95%: 0,79 a 1,51, P = 0,59, evidencia de bajo grado). La evidencia de los beneficios aparentes fue más débil en el seguimiento de uno y cinco años. Los costos estimados de seis ensayos individuales variaron entre un 23% menor y un 15% mayor para el grupo ESD en comparación con la atención habitual. En una serie de análisis pre-planificados, las mayores reducciones en la muerte o la dependencia fueron vistas en los ensayos que evaluaron un co- Con una sugerencia de resultados más pobres en aquellos servicios sin un equipo coordinado (interacción de subgrupos a P = 0,06). Los pacientes con apoplejía con discapacidad de leve a moderada en la línea de base mostraron mayores reducciones en la muerte o la dependencia que aquellos con un accidente cerebrovascular más grave (interacción de subgrupos a P = 0,04). Conclusiones de los autores: Los servicios de ESD adecuadamente dotados con un equipo coordinado multidisciplinario para un grupo seleccionado de pacientes con ictus pueden reducir la dependencia a largo plazo y la admisión a cuidados institucionales, así como reducir la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Los resultados no son concluyentes para los servicios sin la participación coordinada del equipo multidisciplinario. No se observó ningún impacto adverso en el estado de ánimo o estado de salud subjetivo de los pacientes o cuidadores, ni en la readmisión al hospital.
ANTECEDENTES: La atención compartida se ha utilizado en el manejo de muchas enfermedades crónicas con el supuesto de que proporciona mejor atención que el cuidado primario o de especialidad solo; Sin embargo, se sabe poco sobre la eficacia de la atención compartida. OBJETIVOS: Determinar la efectividad de las intervenciones de servicios de salud de atención compartida diseñadas para mejorar el manejo de las enfermedades crónicas a través de la interfaz de atención primaria / especialidad. Esta es una actualización de una revisión publicada anteriormente. Las preguntas secundarias incluyen lo siguiente: 1. ¿Qué intervenciones de atención compartida o porciones de intervenciones de atención compartida son más eficaces? ¿Qué tienen en común los sistemas más eficaces? Métodos de búsqueda: Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE, Embase y la Cochrane Library hasta el 12 de octubre de 2015. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Un autor de la revisión realizó la pantalla abstracta inicial; Luego dos autores de la revisión seleccionaron de forma independiente y seleccionaron los estudios para su inclusión. Se consideraron ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA), ensayos controlados no aleatorios (NRCT), estudios controlados antes y después (CBA) y análisis de series temporales interrumpidas (ITS) evaluando la eficacia de las intervenciones de atención compartida para las personas con condiciones crónicas en atención primaria y Comunidad. La intervención se comparó con la atención habitual en ese entorno. Dos revisores extrajeron de forma independiente los datos de los estudios incluidos, evaluaron la calidad del estudio y evaluaron la certeza de la evidencia utilizando el enfoque GRADE. Se realizó un metaanálisis de los resultados cuando fue posible y se realizó una síntesis narrativa del resto de los resultados. Presentamos los resultados en una tabla de "Resumen de hallazgos", utilizando un formato tabular para mostrar los tamaños del efecto para todos los tipos de resultados. Se identificaron 42 estudios de intervenciones de atención compartida para el manejo de enfermedades crónicas (N = 18.859), 39 de los cuales fueron ECA, dos ACB y uno de NRCT. De estos 42 estudios, 41 examinaron complejas intervenciones de múltiples facetas y duró de seis a 24 meses. En general, nuestra confianza en los resultados con respecto a la eficacia de las intervenciones varió de moderada a alta certidumbre. Los resultados mostraron probablemente pocas o ninguna diferencia en los resultados clínicos en general con una tendencia a mejorar la gestión de la presión arterial en el pequeño número de estudios sobre la atención compartida para la hipertensión, la enfermedad renal crónica y el accidente cerebrovascular (3,447, intervalo de confianza del 95% ) 1.68 a 5.25) (basado en pruebas de certeza moderada). Los resultados de la salud mental mejoraron, particularmente en respuesta al tratamiento de la depresión (RR 1,40; intervalo de confianza del 95%: 1,22 a 1,62; seis estudios, N = 1708) y recuperación de la depresión (RR 2,59; IC del 95%: 1,57 a 4,26; 10 estudios, N = 4482) en estudios que examinaron el diseño de "cuidados escalonados" de intervenciones de atención compartida (basadas en pruebas de alta seguridad). Los investigadores observaron efectos modestos en las puntuaciones medias de depresión (diferencia de medias estandarizada (DME) -0,29; IC del 95%: -0,37 a -0,20; seis estudios, N = 3250). Las diferencias en las medidas de resultado informadas por el paciente (RPM), los procesos de atención y participación y las tasas de morosidad en los servicios de atención compartida probablemente fueron limitadas (basadas en pruebas de certeza moderada). Los estudios probablemente mostraron poca o ninguna diferencia en las admisiones hospitalarias, la utilización del servicio y los comportamientos de salud del paciente (con evidencia de certeza moderada). Conclusiones de los autores Esta revisión sugiere que la atención compartida mejora los resultados de la depresión y probablemente tiene efectos mixtos o limitados sobre otros resultados. Las deficiencias metodológicas, particularmente la duración inadecuada del seguimiento, pueden explicar en parte estos efectos limitados. Los hallazgos de la revisión apoyan la creciente base de evidencia para la atención compartida en el manejo de la depresión, particularmente los modelos escalonados de cuidado compartido. Las intervenciones de atención compartida para otras condiciones deben desarrollarse dentro de los entornos de investigación, teniendo en cuenta la complejidad de tales intervenciones y la conciencia de la necesidad de llevar a cabo estudios más largos para probar la eficacia y la sostenibilidad en el tiempo.
ANTECEDENTES: Las exacerbaciones de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) son un importante factor de disminución del estado de salud e imponen altos costos en los sistemas de salud. Los planes de acción ofrecen una forma de autogestión que puede ser administrada en el contexto de pacientes ambulatorios para ayudar a las personas a reconocer e iniciar el tratamiento temprano de las exacerbaciones, reduciendo así su impacto. OBJETIVOS: Comparar los efectos de un plan de acción para las exacerbaciones de la EPOC provisto de un solo componente corto de educación del paciente y sin un programa comprensivo de autocontrol versus la atención habitual. Los resultados primarios fueron la utilización de la asistencia sanitaria, la mortalidad y el uso de medicamentos. Los resultados secundarios fueron calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, morbilidad psicológica, función pulmonar y costo-efectividad. Métodos de búsqueda: Se realizaron búsquedas en el registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Vías Aéreas, junto con los registros CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase y ensayos clínicos. Las búsquedas están actualizadas hasta noviembre de 2015. Hemos hecho búsquedas manuales en listas bibliográficas y hemos contactado a los autores del estudio para identificar estudios adicionales. Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA) y cuasialeatorios comparando el uso de un plan de acción con el tratamiento habitual para pacientes con diagnóstico clínico de EPOC. Se permitió la inclusión de un único componente de educación corta que permitiera la individualización de los planes de acción de acuerdo con las necesidades de manejo y los síntomas de las personas con EPOC, así como el apoyo continuo dirigido al uso del plan de acción. Recopilación y análisis de datos: Se utilizaron procedimientos metodológicos estándar esperados por Cochrane. Para los metanálisis, subgrupo los estudios mediante seguimiento telefónico dirigido a facilitar el uso del plan de acción. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Esta revisión actualizada incluye dos estudios adicionales (y 976 participantes adicionales), para un total de siete ECAs de grupos paralelos y 1550 participantes, 66% de los cuales eran varones. La media de edad de los participantes fue de 68 años y fue similar entre los estudios. La obstrucción del flujo aéreo fue moderadamente severa en tres estudios y severa en cuatro estudios; El volumen espiratorio forzado del broncodilatador medio en un segundo (FEV1) fue del 54% previsto, y el 27% de los participantes eran fumadores actuales. Cuatro estudios prepararon planes de acción individualizados, un estudio un plan oral y dos estudios planes de acción escritos estándar. Todos los estudios proporcionaron información educativa corta sobre la EPOC, y dos estudios proporcionaron apoyo continuo para el uso del plan de acción. El seguimiento fue de 12 meses en cuatro estudios y seis meses en tres estudios. Cuando se comparó con la atención habitual, un plan de acción con seguimiento telefónico redujo significativamente la tasa combinada de hospitalizaciones y visitas al departamento de urgencias por más de 12 meses En un estudio con 743 participantes (tasa de relación (RR) 0,59, intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC) 0,44 a 0,79, evidencia de alta calidad), pero la tasa de hospitalizaciones solo en este estudio no logró significación estadística (RR 0,69, 95 % CI 0,47 a 1,01, evidencia de calidad moderada). A lo largo de 12 meses, los planes de acción disminuyeron significativamente la probabilidad de ingreso hospitalario (OR 0,69, IC del 95%: 0,49 a 0,97, n = 897, dos ECA, evidencia de calidad moderada, número necesario para tratar un resultado beneficioso adicional NNTB) 19 (11 a 201)) y la probabilidad de una visita al DE (OR 0,55, IC del 95% 0,38 a 0,78, n = 897, dos ECA, pruebas de calidad moderada, NNTB durante 12 meses 12 (9 a 26) Los resultados no mostraron diferencias significativas en la mortalidad por todas las causas durante 12 meses (OR 0,88, IC del 95%: 0,59 a 1,31, n = 1134, cuatro ECA, evidencia de calidad moderada debido al amplio intervalo de confianza). A los 12 meses, el uso de corticosteroides orales aumentó con los planes de acción en comparación con la atención habitual (diferencia de medias 0,74 cursos, IC del 95%: 0,12 a 1,35, n = 200, dos ECA, evidencia de calidad moderada) y la prednisolona acumulada La dosis fue significativamente mayor (DM 779,0 mg, IC del 95%: 533,2 a 10248, n = 743, un ECA, evidencia de alta calidad). El uso de antibióticos fue mayor en el grupo de intervención que en el grupo de atención habitual (subagrupado por seguimiento telefónico) durante 12 meses (MD 2,3 cursos, IC del 95% 1,8 a 2,7, n = 943, tres ECA, ). El análisis de los subgrupos mediante el apoyo continuo al uso del plan de acción fue limitado; Los autores de la revisión no observaron diferencias en los subgrupos en cuanto a la probabilidad de ingreso hospitalario o visitas a la DE o mortalidad por todas las causas durante 12 meses. El uso de antibióticos durante 12 meses mostró una diferencia significativa entre los subgrupos en los estudios sin y con apoyo continuo. La calificación de calidad de vida general en el Cuestionario Respiratorio de San Jorge (SGRQ) mostró una pequeña mejora con los planes de acción en comparación con la atención habitual durante 12 meses , IC del 95%: -0,8 a -4,8, n = 1009, tres ECA, evidencia de calidad moderada). La evidencia de baja calidad no mostró ningún beneficio para la morbilidad psicológica, medida con la Escala Hospitalaria de Ansiedad y Depresión (HADS). El uso de planes de acción de exacerbación de EPOC con un único componente educativo corto junto con el apoyo continuo dirigido al uso del plan de acción, pero sin un programa comprensivo de autogestión, reduce la utilización hospitalaria en el hospital y aumenta el tratamiento de las exacerbaciones de EPOC con Corticosteroides y antibióticos. Es poco probable que el uso de los planes de acción de la EPOC aumente o disminuya la mortalidad en este contexto. No se puede determinar si se obtienen beneficios adicionales del apoyo periódico continuo dirigido al uso de un plan de acción a partir de los resultados de esta revisión.
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.
