Intermediate care at a community hospital as an alternative to prolonged general hospital care for elderly patients: a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Demographic changes together with an increasing demand among older people for hospital beds and other health services make allocation of resources to the most efficient care level a vital issue. The aim of this trial was to study the efficacy of intermediate care at a community hospital compared to standard prolonged care at a general hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a randomised controlled trial 142 patients aged 60 or more admitted to a general hospital due to acute illness or exacerbation of a chronic disease 72 (intervention group) were randomised to intermediate care at a community hospital and 70 (general hospital group) to further general hospital care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the intervention group 14 patients (19.4%) were readmitted for the same disease compared to 25 patients (35.7%) in the general hospital group (p = 0.03). After 26 weeks 18 (25.0%) patients in the intervention group were independent of community care compared to seven (10.0%) in the general hospital group (p = 0.02). There were an insignificant reduction in the number of deaths and an insignificant increase in the number of days with inward care in the intervention group. The number of patients admitted to long-term nursing homes from the intervention group was insignificantly higher than from the general hospital group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Intermediate care at a community hospital significantly decreased the number of readmissions for the same disease to general hospital, and a significantly higher number of patients were independent of community care after 26 weeks of follow-up, without any increase in mortality and number of days in institutions.</p

Unwanted incidents during transition of geriatric patients from hospital to home: a prospective observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Geriatric patients recently discharged from hospital experience increased chance of unplanned readmissions and admission to nursing homes. Several studies have shown that medication-related discrepancies are common. Few studies report unwanted incidents by other factors than medications. In 2002 an ambulatory team (AT) was established within the Department of Geriatrics, St. Olavs University Hospital HF, Trondheim, Norway. The AT monitored the transition of the patients from hospital to home and four weeks after discharge in order to reveal unwanted incidents.</p> <p>The aim of the present study was to describe unwanted incidents registered by the AT among patients discharged from a geriatric evaluation and management unit (GEMU) by character, frequency and stage in the transitional process. Only unwanted incidents with a severity making contact with the primary health care (PHC) necessary were registered.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective observational study with patients treated in the GEMU and followed by the AT was performed. Current practice included comprehensive geriatric assessment and management including discharge planning in the GEMU and collaboration with the primary health care on appointments on assistance to be provided after discharge from hospital. Unwanted incidents severe enough to induce contact with the primary health care were registered during the transitional phase and after discharge.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>118 patients (65% female), with mean age 83.2 ± 6.4 years participated. Median Barthel Index at discharge was 18 (interquartile range 16-19) and median Mini Mental Status Examination 24 (interquartile range 21-26). A total of 146 unwanted incidents were registered in 70 (59%) of the patients. Most frequent were unwanted incidents related to drug prescription regime (32%), exchange of information in and between the GEMU and the primary health care (25%) and service or help provided from the PHC (17%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite a seemingly well-organised system for transition of patients from the GEMU to their homes, one or more unwanted incidents occurred in most patients during discharge or four weeks post discharge. The study has revealed areas of importance for improving transitional care of geriatric patients.</p

Multidisciplinary care planning in the primary care management of completed stroke: a systematic review

Background: Chronic disease management requires input from multiple health professionals, both specialist and primary care providers. This study sought to assess the impact of co-ordinated multidisciplinary care in primary care, represented by the delivery of formal care planning by primary care teams or shared across primary-secondary teams, on outcomes in stroke, relative to usual care

Клинически значимые варианты анатомии ветвления чревного ствола и прилежащих к нему лимфоузлов

ЛИМФАТИЧЕСКИЕ УЗЛЫ /АНАТОМАНГИОГРАФИЯ /ИСПАРТЕРИОГРАФИЯ /ИСПВАЗОГРАФИЯ /ИСПРЕНТГЕНОАНГИОГРАФИЯ /ИСПМАГНИТНОГО РЕЗОНАНСА ИЗОБРАЖЕНИЕ /ИСПМР-ТОМОГРАФИЯ /ИСПТОМОГРАФИЯ, ЯМР /ИСПЯМР-ИЗОБРАЖЕНИЕ /ИСПЯМР-ТОМОГРАФИЯ /ИСПМАГНИТНО-РЕЗОНАНСНАЯ АНГИОГРАФИЯ /ИСПАНГИОГРАФИЯ МАГНИТНО-РЕЗОНАНСНАЯ /ИСПМРИ-АНГИОГРАФИЯ /ИСПАРТЕРИИ /АНАТОМПЕЧЕНОЧНАЯ АРТЕРИЯ /АНАТОМСЕЛЕЗЕНОЧНАЯ АРТЕРИЯ /АНАТОМДИАГНОСТИКАКРОВЕНОСНЫЕ СОСУДЫ /АНАТОМ /АНОМАЛАОРТА БРЮШНАЯ /АНАТОМСЕРДЕЧНО-СОСУДИСТАЯ СИСТЕМА /АНАТОМЛЕВАЯ ЖЕЛУДОЧНАЯ АРТЕРИЯЛУЧЕВАЯ ВИЗУАЛИЗАЦИЯСИНДРОМ КОМПРЕССИИ ЧРЕВНОГО СТВОЛАВЕТВЛЕНИЯ ЧРЕВНОГО СТВОЛАЧРЕВНЫЙ СТВО

Independence, institutionalization, death and treatment costs 18 months after rehabilitation of older people in two different primary health care settings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The optimal setting and content of primary health care rehabilitation of older people is not known. Our aim was to study independence, institutionalization, death and treatment costs 18 months after primary care rehabilitation of older people in two different settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighteen months follow-up of an open, prospective study comparing the outcome of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation of older people, in a structured and intensive Primary care dedicated inpatient rehabilitation (PCDIR, n=202) versus a less structured and less intensive Primary care nursing home rehabilitation (PCNHR, n=100). Participants: 302 patients, disabled from stroke, hip-fracture, osteoarthritis and other chronic diseases, aged ≥65years, assessed to have a rehabilitation potential and being referred from general hospital or own residence. Outcome measures: Primary: Independence, assessed by Sunnaas ADL Index(SI). Secondary: Hospital and short-term nursing home length of stay (LOS); institutionalization, measured by institutional residence rate; death; and costs of rehabilitation and care. Statistical tests: T-tests, Correlation tests, Pearson’s χ², ANCOVA, Regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall SI scores were 26.1 (SD 7.2) compared to 27.0 (SD 5.7) at the end of rehabilitation, a statistically, but not clinically significant reduction (p=0.003 95%CI(0.3-1.5)). The PCDIR patients scored 2.2points higher in SI than the PCNHR patients, adjusted for age, gender, baseline MMSE and SI scores (p=0.003, 95%CI(0.8-3.7)). Out of 49 patients staying >28 days in short-term nursing homes, PCNHR-patients stayed significantly longer than PCDIR-patients (mean difference 104.9 days, 95%CI(0.28-209.6), p=0.05). The institutionalization increased in PCNHR (from 12%-28%, p=0.001), but not in PCDIR (from 16.9%-19.3%, p= 0.45). The overall one year mortality rate was 9.6%. Average costs were substantially higher for PCNHR versus PCDIR. The difference per patient was 3528€ for rehabilitation (p<0.001, 95%CI(2455–4756)), and 10134€ for the at-home care (p=0.002, 95%CI(4066–16202)). The total costs of rehabilitation and care were 18702€ (=1.6 times) higher for PCNHR than for PCDIR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>At 18 months follow-up the PCDIR-patients maintained higher levels of independence, spent fewer days in short-term nursing homes, and did not increase the institutionalization compared to PCNHR. The costs of rehabilitation and care were substantially lower for PCDIR. More communities should consider adopting the PCDIR model.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01457300</p