The hospital-based, post-acute geriatric evaluation and management unit: the experience of the acute geriatric unit in Trieste

The impact of facility-based transitional care programs on function and discharge destination for older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic review

Background

Older adults with cognitive impairment are frequently hospitalized and discharged to facility-based transitional care programs (TCPs). However, it is unknown whether TCPs are effective in improving their functional status and promoting discharge home rather than to long-term care. The aims of this systematic review were to examine the effectiveness of facility-based TCPs on functional status, patient and health services outcomes for older adults (≥ 65 years) with cognitive impairment and to determine what proportion post TCP are discharged home compared to long-term care.

Methods

The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Manual for Evidence Synthesis was used to guide the methodology for this review. The protocol was published in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021257870). MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Trials Registry were searched for English publications. Studies that met the following criteria were included: community-dwelling older adults ≥ 65 years who participated in facility-based TCPs and included functional status and/or discharge destination outcomes. Studies with participants from nursing homes and involved rehabilitation programs or transitional care in the home or in acute care, were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. Results are in narrative form.

Results

Twenty-two studies (18 cohort and four cross sectional studies) involving 4,013,935 participants met inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was mostly moderate to good. Improvement in activities of daily living (ADLs) was reported in eight of 13 studies. Between 24.4%-68% of participants were discharged home, 20–43.9% were hospitalized, and 4.1–40% transitioned to long-term care. Review limitations included the inability to perform meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of outcome measurement tools, measurement times, and patient populations.

Conclusions

Facility-based TCPs are associated with improvements in ADLs and generally result in a greater percentage of participants with cognitive impairment going home rather than to long-term care. However, gains in function were not as great as for those without cognitive impairment. Future research should employ consistent outcome measurement tools to facilitate meta-analyses. The level of evidence is level III-2 according to the National Health and Medical Research Council for cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Understanding transitional care programs for older adults who experience delayed discharge: a scoping review

Background

Many hospitalized older adults cannot be discharged because they lack the health and social support to meet their post-acute care needs. Transitional care programs (TCPs) are designed to provide short-term and low-intensity restorative care to these older adults experiencing or at risk for delayed discharge. However, little is known about the contextual factors (i.e., patient, staff and environmental characteristics) that may influence the implementation and outcomes of TCPs. This scoping review aims to answer: 1) What are socio-demographic and/or clinical characteristics of older patients served by TCPs?; 2) What are the core components provided by TCPs?; and 3) What patient, caregiver, and health system outcomes have been investigated and what changes in these outcomes have been reported for TCPs?

Methods

The six-step scoping review framework and PRISMA-ScR checklist were followed. Studies were included if they presented models of TCPs and evaluated them in community-dwelling older adults (65+) experiencing or at-risk for delayed discharge. The data synthesis was informed by a framework, consistent with Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome model.

Results

TCP patients were typically older women with multiple chronic conditions and some cognitive impairment, functionally dependent and living alone. The review identified five core components of TCPs: assessment; care planning and monitoring; treatment; discharge planning; and patient, family and staff education. The main outcomes examined were functional status and discharge destination. The results were discussed with a view to inform policy makers, clinicians and administrators designing and evaluating TCPs as a strategy for addressing delayed hospital discharges.

Conclusion

TCPs can influence outcomes for older adults, including returning home. TCPs should be designed to incorporate interdisciplinary care teams, proactively admit those at risk of delayed discharge, accommodate persons with cognitive impairment and involve care partners. Additional studies are required to investigate the contributions of TCPs within integrated health care systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02099-9.

Medical day hospital care for older people versus alternative forms of care

BACKGROUND

The proportion of the world's population aged over 60 years is increasing. Therefore, there is a need to examine different methods of healthcare provision for this population. Medical day hospitals provide multidisciplinary health services to older people in one location.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of medical day hospitals for older people in preventing death, disability, institutionalisation and improving subjective health status.

SEARCH METHODS

Our search included the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Register of Studies, CENTRAL (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1950-2013 ), EMBASE via Ovid (1947-2013) and CINAHL via EbscoHost (1980-2013). We also conducted cited reference searches, searched conference proceedings and trial registries, hand searched select journals, and contacted relevant authors and researchers to inquire about additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing medical day hospitals with alternative care for older people (mean/median > 60 years of age).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials were sub-categorised as comprehensive care, domiciliary care or no comprehensive care.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3689 participants) compared day hospitals with comprehensive care (five trials), domiciliary care (seven trials) or no comprehensive care (four trials). Overall there was low quality evidence from these trials for the following results.For the outcome of death, there was no strong evidence for or against day hospitals compared to other treatments overall (odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28; P = 0.66), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.82; P = 0.22), domiciliary care (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.55; P = 0.89), or no comprehensive care (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22; P = 0.43).For the outcome of death or deterioration in activities of daily living (ADL), there was no strong evidence for day hospital attendance compared to other treatments (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; P = 0.70), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.63 to 2.18; P = 0.61), domiciliary care (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.21) or no comprehensive care (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; P = 0.09).For the outcome of death or poor outcome (institutional care, dependency, deterioration in physical function), there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.15; P = 0.49), or compared to comprehensive care (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.40; P = 0.74) or domiciliary care (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.74; P = 0.75). However, compared with no comprehensive care there was a difference in favour of day hospitals (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; P = 0.04).For the outcome of death or institutional care, there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments overall (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; P = 0.28), or to comprehensive care (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44; P = 0.99), domiciliary care (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.57 to1.92; P = 0. 88) or no comprehensive care (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.00; P = 0.05).For the outcome of deterioration in ADL, there was no strong evidence that day hospital attendance had a different effect than other treatments overall (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.80; P = 0.67) or compared with comprehensive care (OR 1.21; 0.58 to 2.52; P = 0.61), or domiciliary care (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.90; P = 0.13). However, day hospital patients showed a reduced odds of deterioration compared with those receiving no comprehensive care (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.97; P = 0.04) and significant subgroup differences (P = 0.04).For the outcome of requiring institutional care, there was no strong evidence for day hospitals compared to other treatments (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; P = 0.35), or to comprehensive care (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.19; P = 0.49), domiciliary care (OR 1.49; 95% CI 0.53 to 4.25; P = 0.45), or no comprehensive care (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.20; P = 0.14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence that medical day hospitals appear effective compared to no comprehensive care for the combined outcome of death or poor outcome, and for deterioration in ADL. There is no clear evidence for other outcomes, or an advantage over other medical care provision.