[Short-stay respiratory unit: a new option for inpatient care]

Hospitalisation in short-stay units for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions

BACKGROUND

Short-stay units are hospital units that provide short-term care for selected patients. Studies have indicated that short-stay units might reduce admission rates, time of hospital stays, hospital readmissions and expenditure without compromising the quality of care. Short-stay units are often defined by a target patient category, a target function, and a target time frame. Hypothetically, short-stay units could be established as part of any department, but this review focuses on short-stay units that provide care for participants with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess beneficial and harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation compared with usual care in people with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to 13 December 2017 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several grey literature sources and performed a forward citation search for included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials, comparing hospitalisation in a short-stay unit with usual care (hospitalisation in a traditional hospital ward or other services). We defined a short-stay unit to be a hospital ward where the targeted length of stay in hospital for patients was five days or less. We included both multipurpose and specialised short-stay units. Participants were adults admitted to hospital with an internal medicine disease or condition. We excluded surgical, obstetric, psychiatric, gynaecological, and ambulatory participants. Trials were included irrespective of publication status, date, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. We measured intervention effect sizes by meta-analyses for two primary outcomes, mortality and serious adverse events, and one secondary outcome, hospital readmission. We narratively reported the following important outcomes: quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs. We used risk ratio differences of 15% for mortality and of 20% for serious adverse events for minimal relevant clinical consideration. We rated the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations of the outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 records reporting on 14 randomised trials with a total of 2872 participants. One trial was ongoing. Thirteen trials evaluated short-stay unit hospitalisation for six specific conditions (acute decompensated heart failure (one trial), asthma (one trial), atrial fibrillation (one trial), chest pain (seven trials), syncope (two trials), and transient ischaemic attack (one trial)) and one trial investigated participants presenting with miscellaneous internal medicine disease and conditions. The components of the intervention differed among the trials as dictated by the trial participants' condition. All included trials were at high risk of bias.The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether hospitalisation in short-stay units compared with usual care reduces mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.15) 5 trials (seven additional trials reporting on 1299 participants reported no deaths in either group)); serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.54; 7 trials (one additional trial with 108 participants reported no serious adverse events in either group)), and hospital readmission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19, 8 trials (one additional trial with 424 participants did not report results for participants)). There was not enough information to confirm or refute that short-stay unit hospitalisation had relevant effects on quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quantity and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether there are any beneficial or harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions - more trials comparing the effects of short-stay units with usual care are needed. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors to improve the overall confidence in the evidence.

A general medical short-stay unit is not more efficient than a traditional model of care

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency of a short-stay unit (SSU) for undifferentiated medical patients and evaluate its effect on the overall efficiency of a general medicine department.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS

Retrospective study of all general medical patients admitted to the SSU at Flinders Medical Centre, South Australia, during its 5 years of operation (2005-2009), compared with 4 years before its institution and 2 years after its closure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative stay index (RSI); inhospital mortality; readmissions within 7 and 28 days.

RESULTS

23 790 general medical patients were admitted overall, and 10 764 of these (45.2%) were admitted to the SSU. The RSI for the SSU during its years of operation was 0.79, compared with 1.34 for the long-stay unit. The overall RSI for the department did not improve during those years and was not significantly different to the periods before or after.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that an SSU for undifferentiated medical patients creates bed capacity. It does, however, appear to be safe.

Favorable bed utilization and readmission rates for emergency department observation unit heart failure patients

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to compare readmission rates and hospital bed-days between acute decompensated heart failure (AHF) patients admitted or discharged following accelerated treatment protocol (ATP)-driven care in an emergency department observation unit (OU).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two urban university-affiliated hospitals. A total of 358 selected AHF patients received treatment on an ATP in the OU between October 1, 2007, and June 30, 2011. The comparison of interest was admission or discharge following OU treatment. The outcome of interest was readmission within 30 and 90 days of hospital discharge following care in the OU. We also examined resource use (inpatient, inpatient plus outpatient-days) between the admitted and discharged groups. Time to readmission analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Discharged and admitted patients were similar with respect to age, race, sex, ED length of stay (LOS), and OU LOS. Patients admitted from the OU had a higher median B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP; 1,063 pg/mL [interquartile range {IQR} = 552 to 2,067 pg/mL] vs. 708 pg/mL [IQR = 254 to 1,683 pg/mL]; p = 0.002) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN; 19 mg/dL [IQR = 14 to 26 mg/dL] vs. 17 mg/dL [IQR = 13 to 23 mg/dL]) than those discharged (p = 0.04) and a lower median ejection fraction (EF; 22.5% [15% to 43%] vs. 35% [IQR 20% to 55%]; p = 0.002). In models controlling for age, race, sex, clinical site, BNP, BUN, creatinine, and EF, the 30-day readmission rate (13.8% in the study population as a whole) was not significantly different between the patients discharged or admitted following OU care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 2.10). The readmission rates were also not significantly different at 90 days (HR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.77). Within 30 days of discharge from the OU, patients spent a median of 1.7 days (IQR = 0.0 to 5.1 days) as inpatients, compared to 3.5 days (IQR = 2.3 to 5.8 days) among patients admitted from the OU (p < 0.0001). Among readmitted patients, the total median inpatient time was not significantly different between the comparison groups at both 30 and 90 days of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Selected acute heart failure (HF) patients managed by a rapid treatment protocol in the OU demonstrated favorable hospital use, with discharged patients using fewer bed-days and demonstrating readmission rates that were not higher than admitted patients.

A short-stay unit for thyroidectomy patients increases discharge efficiency

BACKGROUND

Patients traditionally recover overnight on a general surgery ward after a thyroidectomy; however, these units often lack the efficiency and focus for rapid discharge, which is the goal of a short-stay (SS) unit. Using an SS unit for thyroidectomy patients, who are often discharged in <24 h, may reduce the duration of hospital stay and subsequently decrease associated costs and increase hospital bed and resource availability.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 400 patients undergoing thyroidectomy at a single academic hospital. We analyzed postoperative discharge information and hospital cost data. Adult patients who stayed a single night in the hospital were included. We compared patients staying on a designated SS unit versus a general surgery (GS) ward.

RESULTS

A total of 223 patients were admitted to SS, and 177 to GS. Trends of admission location were blocked based on time period, with most patients per time period going to the same location. Discharge times were significantly quicker for patients admitted to SS (P < 0.001). A total of 70% of SS patients were discharged before noon, versus 40% of GS patients (P < 0.001). Many variances were identified to account for these differences. Direct costs were significantly lower with SS, owing to savings in pharmacy, recovery room, and nursing expenses (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A designated short-stay hospital unit is an effective model for increasing the efficiency of discharge for thyroidectomy patients compared with those admitted to a general surgery ward. It also serves to increase bed availability, which decreases hospital cost and may improve patient flow.

The Short Stay Unit as a new option for hospitals: a review of the scientific literature

Background

The short stay unit (SSU) is a ward providing targeted care for patients requiring brief hospitalization and dischargeable as soon as clinical conditions are resolved. Therefore, SSU is an alternative to the ordinary ward (OW) for the treatment of selected patients. The SSU model has been tested in only a few hospitals, and the literature lacks systematic evaluation of the impact of SSU use. The aim of our study was to evaluate the use of SSUs in terms of length of hospital stay, mortality and readmission rate.

Material/Methods

A random effect meta-analysis was carried out by consulting electronic databases. Studies were selected that focused on comparison between use of SSUs and OWs. Mean difference of length of stay was calculated within 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Six articles were selected, for a total of 21 264 patients. The estimated mean difference was −3.06 days (95% CI −4.71, −1.40) in favor of the SSU. The selected articles did not show any differences in terms of mortality and readmission rate.

Conclusions

Use of SSUs could reduce patient length of stay in hospital, representing an alternative to the ordinary ward for selected patients. A shorter period of hospitalization could reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections, increase patient satisfaction and yield more efficient use of hospital beds. Findings of this study are useful for institutional, managerial and clinical decision-makers regarding the implementation of the SSU in a hospital setting, and for better management of continuity of care.