Effect of single follow-up home visit on readmission in a group of frail elderly patients - a Danish randomized clinical trial

Maurice A Lembeck, Lau C Thygesen, Birgitte Dreyer Sørensen, Lisbeth Lumby Rasmussen, Ellen A Holm, Maurice A Lembeck, Lau C Thygesen, Birgitte Dreyer Sørensen, Lisbeth Lumby Rasmussen, Ellen A Holm

Abstract

Background: Unplanned hospital admissions are costly and prevention of these has been a focus for research for decades. With this study we aimed to determine whether discharge planning including a single follow-up home visit reduces readmission rate. The intervention is not representing a new method but contributes to the evidence concerning intensity of the intervention in this patient group.

Methods: This study was a centrally randomized single-center controlled trial comparing intervention to usual care with investigator-blinded outcome assessment. Patients above the age of 65 were discharged from a single Danish hospital during 2013-2014 serving a rural and low socioeconomic area. For intervention patients study and department nurses reviewed discharge planning the day before discharge. On the day of discharge, study nurses accompanied the patient to their home, where they met with the municipal nurse. Together with the patient they reviewed cognitive skills, medicine, nutrition, mobility, functional status, and future appointments in the health care sector and intervened if appropriate. Readmission at any hospital in Denmark within 8, 30, and 180 days after discharge is reported. Secondary outcomes were time to first readmission, number of readmissions, length of stay, and readmission with Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions, visits to general practitioners, municipal services, and mortality.

Results: One thousand forty-nine patients aged > 65 years discharged from medical, geriatric, emergency, surgical or orthopedic departments met inclusion criteria characteristic of frailty, e.g. low functional status, need of more personal help and multiple medications. Among 945 eligible patients, 544 were randomized. Seven patients died before discharge. 56% in the intervention group and 54% in the control group were readmitted (p = 0.71) and 23% from the intervention group and 22% from the control group died within 180 days. There were no significant differences between intervention and control groups concerning other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions: There was no effect of a single follow-up home visit on readmission in a group of frail elderly patients discharged from hospital.

Trial registration: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02318680" title="See in ClinicalTrials.gov">NCT02318680), retrospectively registered December 11, 2014.

Keywords: Clinical trial; Discharge planning; Elderly; Frailty; Readmission.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Time to a) first readmission and b) death

References

    1. van Walraven C, Bennett C, Jennings A, Austin PC, Forster AJ. Proportion of hospital readmissions deemed avoidable: a systematic review. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 2011;183(7):E391–E402. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101860.
    1. Billings J, Zeitel L, Lukomnik J, Carey TS, Blank AE, Newman L. Impact of socioeconomic status on hospital use in new York City. Health Aff (Millwood) 1993;12(1):162–173. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.12.1.162.
    1. Longman JM, Passey ME, Ewald DP, Rix E, Morgan GG. Admissions for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions - a useful measure of potentially preventable admission? BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:472. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1137-0.
    1. Rutstein DD, Berenberg W, Chalmers TC, Child CG, 3rd, Fishman AP, Perrin EB. Measuring the quality of medical care. A clinical method. N Engl J Med. 1976;294(11):582–588. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197603112941104.
    1. Ansari Z, Haider SI, Ansari H, de Gooyer T, Sindall C. Patient characteristics associated with hospitalisations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Victoria, Australia. BMC health services research. 2012;12:475. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-475.
    1. Rosano A, Abo Loha C, Falvo R, van der Zee J, Ricciardi W, Guasticchi G, de Belvis AG. The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health. 2012.
    1. García-Armesto S, Angulo-Pueyo E, Martinez-Lizaga N, Thygesen LC, Christiansen T, Bernal-Delgado E: ECHO atlas on potentially avoidable Hospitalisations, available from accessed 1.1.2016. In: Available from wwwecho-healtheu/echo-atlas-reports. vol. accessed 01.01.2016: European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (ECHO) Project; 2014.
    1. Medicare Fines 2,610 Hospitals In Third Round Of Readmission Penalties [ accessed February 6th, 2016].
    1. Joynt KE, Jha AK. A path forward on Medicare readmissions. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1175–1177. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1300122.
    1. Vaduganathan M, Bonow RO, Gheorghiade M. Thirty-day readmissions: the clock is ticking. Jama. 2013;309(4):345–346. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.205110.
    1. Joynt KE, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmissions--truth and consequences. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(15):1366–1369. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1201598.
    1. Campbell SE, Seymour DG, Primrose WR. A systematic literature review of factors affecting outcome in older medical patients admitted to hospital. Age Ageing. 2004;33(2):110–115. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afh036.
    1. Franchi C, Nobili A, Mari D, Tettamanti M, Djade CD, Pasina L, Salerno F, Corrao S, Marengoni A, Iorio A, et al. Risk factors for hospital readmission of elderly patients. European journal of internal medicine. 2013;24(1):45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2012.10.005.
    1. Trachtenberg AJ, Dik N, Chateau D, Katz A. Inequities in ambulatory care and the relationship between socioeconomic status and respiratory hospitalizations: a population-based study of a Canadian city. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(5):402–407. doi: 10.1370/afm.1683.
    1. Konstantyner T, Mais LA, Taddei JA. Factors associated with avoidable hospitalisation of children younger than 2 years old: the 2006 Brazilian National Demographic Health Survey. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:69. doi: 10.1186/s12939-015-0204-9.
    1. Basu J, Mobley LR, Thumula V. The small area predictors of ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations: a comparison of changes over time. Social work in public health. 2014;29(2):176–188. doi: 10.1080/19371918.2013.776316.
    1. Johnson PJ, Ghildayal N, Ward AC, Westgard BC, Boland LL, Hokanson JS. Disparities in potentially avoidable emergency department (ED) care: ED visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1020–1028. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318270bad4.
    1. Agabiti N, Pirani M, Schifano P, Cesaroni G, Davoli M, Bisanti L, Caranci N, Costa G, Forastiere F, Marinacci C, et al. Income level and chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions in adults: a multicity population-based study in Italy. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:457. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-457.
    1. Nedel FB, Facchini LA, Martin-Mateo M, Vieira LA, Thume E. Family health program and ambulatory care-sensitive conditions in southern Brazil. Revista de saude publica. 2008;42(6):1041–1052. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102008000600010.
    1. Robbins JM, Valdmanis VG, Webb DA. Do public health clinics reduce rehospitalizations?: the urban diabetes study. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008;19(2):562–573. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0013.
    1. DeLia D. Distributional issues in the analysis of preventable hospitalizations. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(6 Pt 2):1761–1779. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00201.x.
    1. Shah BR, Gunraj N, Hux JE. Markers of access to and quality of primary care for aboriginal people in Ontario, Canada. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(5):798–802. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.5.798.
    1. Joynt KE, Sarma N, Epstein AM, Jha AK, Weissman JS. Challenges in reducing readmissions: lessons from leadership and frontline personnel at eight minority-serving hospitals. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources. 2014;40(10):435–437. doi: 10.1016/S1553-7250(14)40056-4.
    1. Barnett ML, Hsu J, McWilliams JM. Patient characteristics and differences in hospital readmission rates. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1803–1812. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4660.
    1. Billings J, Dixon J, Mijanovich T, Wennberg D. Case finding for patients at risk of readmission to hospital: development of algorithm to identify high risk patients. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2006;333(7563):327. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A, Kagen D, Theobald C, Freeman M, Kripalani S. Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. Jama. 2011;306(15):1688–1698. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1515.
    1. Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, Brito JP, Mair FS, Gallacher K, Wang Z, Erwin PJ, Sylvester T, Boehmer K, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095–1107. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608.
    1. Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Morley JE. A comparison of four frailty models. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(4):721–726. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12735.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
    1. Pedersen CB. The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 Suppl):22–25. doi: 10.1177/1403494810387965.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 Suppl):30–33. doi: 10.1177/1403494811401482.
    1. Andersen JS, Olivarius Nde F, Krasnik A. The Danish National Health Service Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 Suppl):34–37. doi: 10.1177/1403494810394718.
    1. Melton LD, Foreman C, Scott E, McGinnis M, Cousins M. Prioritized post-discharge telephonic outreach reduces hospital readmissions for select high-risk patients. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18(12):838–844.
    1. Stewart S, Pearson S, Luke CG, Horowitz JD. Effects of home-based intervention on unplanned readmissions and out-of-hospital deaths. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(2):174–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02535.x.
    1. Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R, Jacobsen BS, Mezey MD, Pauly MV, Schwartz JS. Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 1999;281(7):613–620. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.7.613.
    1. Rytter L, Jakobsen HN, Ronholt F, Hammer AV, Andreasen AH, Nissen A, Kjellberg J. Comprehensive discharge follow-up in patients' homes by GPs and district nurses of elderly patients. A randomized controlled trial. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2010;28(3):146–153. doi: 10.3109/02813431003764466.
    1. Hansen FR, Poulsen H, Sorensen KH. A model of regular geriatric follow-up by home visits to selected patients discharged from a geriatric ward: a randomized controlled trial. Aging (Milano) 1995;7(3):202–206.
    1. Linertova R, Garcia-Perez L, Vazquez-Diaz JR, Lorenzo-Riera A, Sarria-Santamera A. Interventions to reduce hospital readmissions in the elderly: in-hospital or home care. A systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(6):1167–1175. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01493.x.
    1. Shepperd S, Doll H, Angus RM, Clarke MJ, Iliffe S, Kalra L, Ricauda NA, Wilson AD. Admission avoidance hospital at home. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2008(4):Cd007491.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner