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.

Acute Pyelonephritis in Emergency Medicine Ward: A Four Years Retrospective Review

Objective

To study the characteristics of patients with acute pyelonephritis (AP) admitted to the emergency medicine ward (EMW) and sensitivity pattern of bacteria cultured from urine as well as to find out which antibiotic should be the best empirical treatment.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. All patient diagnosed with AP admitted to the EMW in Tuen Mun Hospital from January 2007 to December 2010 were included in this study. Data on patients' demographics, length of stay, urine culture and antibiotic sensitivity results as well as the types of antibiotics administered to them were collected and analysed.

Results

Altogether 308 patients were admitted to the EMW during the study period, accounting for 58% of all hospital admissions with the same diagnosis. There were comparatively more female patients (p<0.001) and fewer patients with diabetes (p<0.001) admitted to the EMW compared with other departments. The mean length of stay in EMW (2.2 days) was significantly shorter than that in other departments (7.1 days) (p<0.001). E. Coli was the commonest cultured bacterium, accounting for 94% of all positive growths. Cefuroxime sodium had high sensitivity (84%) in treating AP, which was significantly higher than that of amoxicillin-clavulanate (75%) (p<0.001). Levofloxacin also had high sensitivity (86%) but the difference between cefuroxime sodium and levofloxacin was not statistically significant (p=0.67).

Conclusions

Patients with AP admitted to local EMWs should be given either cefuroxime sodium intravenously or levofloxacin orally (if they can tolerate oral intake) as empirical treatments. Oral levofloxacin can be continued upon discharge.

The Efficacy of Emergency Medicine Ward for the Management of Patients with Mental Disorders

Objective

Patients with mental disorders are one of the target groups selected for management in the Emergency Medicine Ward (EMW) with the enrolment of psychiatric advanced practice nurses. This study aimed to determine whether the EMW can be efficiently used for the management of patients with mental disorders in terms of length of stay (LOS), admission rate, and re-attendance rate when compared with the medical ward.

Methods

This was a retrospective descriptive study. Patients with mental disorders were defined and recruited from the Princess Margaret Hospital during two selected study periods: pre-opening (pre-EMW) and post-opening (post-EMW) of the EMW. All emergency department records of patients with mental disorders within these two periods were reviewed and data of the selected samples were retrieved from different computer databases.

Results

The total number of patients with mental disorders was 565 in the pre-EMW period and 404 in the post-EMW period; 214 (37.9%) cases were admitted into the medical ward in the pre-EMW period while only 62 (15.3%) were admitted into the medical ward in the post-EMW period. The mean LOS in the pre-EMW period was 67.7 hours. For the post-EMW period, the mean LOS was 32.3 hours. The reduction in mean LOS was 35.4 hours, and 82% of the study patients treated in the EMW were discharged within 48 hours. Notably, 23.3% of the cases re-attended the emergency department after discharge from the medical ward, whereas only 8.8% of cases re-attended after discharge from the EMW.

Conclusion

Patients with mental disorders or related problems can be efficaciously managed in the EMW, as evidenced by a decrease in the length of stay, admission rate, and re-attendance rate.

Use of a 23-hour emergency department observation unit for the management of patients with toxic exposures

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients with toxic exposures presenting to the ED require admission. However, most will improve within 24 hours, and so could potentially be managed in a short-stay observation unit. We describe the management and outcomes of these patients in a 23-hour ED observation unit (EDOU).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all patients with toxic exposures admitted to the EDOU in Singapore between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, exposure patterns, clinical presentation and interventions received were abstracted. The poisoning severity score (PSS) was retrospectively determined. Outcomes were length of stay and disposition.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients were analysed, of which 78.0% had intentional self-poisoning, 12.2% had bites/stings and 9.8% had unintentional or occupational toxic exposures. Analgesics (29.4%), sedatives (12.3%) and antidepressants (6.8%) were the most common drugs encountered. The majority of patients had a mild (68.9%) or moderate (15.4%) PSS, but 4.2% were graded as severe. Most patients with deliberate self-poisoning were reviewed by psychiatry (88.8%) and social services (74.9%). Most patients (92.0%) were medically cleared during their stay in EDOU, including all 12 with a severe PSS. Of these, 200 (69.9%) were discharged and 63 (22.0%) were transferred directly to a psychiatric unit. The median length of stay in the EDOU was 18 hours (IQR 13-23).

CONCLUSION

Most patients admitted to the EDOU were successfully managed and medically cleared within 23 hours, including those with a severe PSS. The EDOU appears to be a suitable alternative to inpatient admission for selected patients.