Interventions to Prevent Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations:A Mixed Methods Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: The demand for healthcare is increasing due to an aging population, more people living with chronic diseases and medical comorbidities. To manage this demand, political institutions call for action to reduce the potentially avoidable hospitalizations. Quantitative and qualitative aspects should be considered to understand how and why interventions work, and for whom. The aim of this mixed methods systematic review was to identify and synthesize evidence on interventions targeting avoidable hospitalizations from the perspectives of the citizens and the healthcare professionals to improve the preventive healthcare services. METHODS AND RESULTS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted following the JBI methodology using a convergent integrated approach to synthesis. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, reg. no. CRD42020134652. A systematic search was undertaken in six databases. In total, 45 articles matched the eligibility criteria, and 25 of these (five qualitative studies and 20 quantitative studies) were found to be of acceptable methodological quality. From the 25 articles, 99 meaning units were extracted. The combined evidence revealed four categories, which were synthesized into two integrated findings: (1) Addressing individual needs through care continuity and coordination prevent avoidable hospitalizations and (2) Recognizing preventive care as an integrated part of the healthcare work to prevent avoidable hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: The syntheses highlight the importance of addressing individual needs through continuous and coordinated care practices to prevent avoidable hospitalizations. Engaging healthcare professionals in preventive care work and considering implications for patient safety may be given higher priority. Healthcare administers and policy-makers could support the delivery of preventive care through targeted educational material aimed at healthcare professionals and simple web-based IT platforms for information-sharing across healthcare settings. The findings are an important resource in the development and implementation of interventions to prevent avoidable hospitalizations, and may serve to improve patient safety and quality in preventive healthcare services. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=134652, identifier: CRD42020134652

Survival of primary total hip arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There has been a limited amount of research on survival of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We therefore performed a population-based, nationwide study to compare the survival of primary THAs in RA patients and in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. We also wanted to identify predictors of THA failure in RA patients. METHODS: Using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, we identified 1,661 primary THAs in RA patients and 64,858 in OA patients, all of which were inserted between 1995 and 2008. The follow-up period was up to 14 years for both groups. RESULTS: Regarding overall THA survival, the adjusted RR for RA patients compared to OA patients was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65–1.01). We found no difference in survival of cups between primary THAs in RA and OA patients. In contrast, there was better overall survival of stems in RA patients than in OA patients, both regarding revision due to aseptic loosening (adjusted RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34–0.99) and for any reason (adjusted RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.45–0.88). In RA patients, males had a higher risk of revision than females concerning aseptic loosening of the stem, any revision of the stem, and any revision of both components. INTERPRETATION: The overall survival of primary THAs in RA patients is similar to THA survival in OA patients. Stem survival appeared to be better in RA patients, while survival of the total THA concept did not show any statistically significant differences between the two groups. In RA patients, males appear to have a greater risk of revision than females