Interventions to reduce readmissions after pneumonia hospitalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sarah A Phillips, Julie D Sill, Rehan Qayyum
{"title":"Interventions to reduce readmissions after pneumonia hospitalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sarah A Phillips, Julie D Sill, Rehan Qayyum","doi":"10.1002/jhm.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preventable hospital readmissions, reflecting suboptimal healthcare quality and increased costs, highlight the need for evidence to shape healthcare delivery.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review assesses interventions to reduce readmissions following pneumonia-related hospitalizations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception to May 29, 2024. English language peer-reviewed studies examining interventions to reduce readmissions after pneumonia hospitalization were selected. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated certainty of evidence using standardized assessment tools. When possible, study results were pooled using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 601 articles initially identified, 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Eight interventions were evaluated from eight retrospective cohort studies, five randomized controlled trials, and two pre-post trials. Hospital-based skilled nursing facilities, patient education, early postdischarge follow-up, nutrition supplementation, and a high physician-to-bed ratio were linked to reduced readmissions. Early mobilization also showed a significant reduction in readmissions (pooled odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75, 0.95; p = .005). Hospital participation in Accountable Care Organizations did not affect readmissions, and pharmacist-involved discharge similarly found no significant impact (pooled odds ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44, 1.01; p = .06). Risk of bias was high across most studies due to inadequate controlling for confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Certainty of evidence was high for early mobilization, low for hospital-based skilled nursing facilities, and very low for pharmacist-involved discharge processes. Small sample size and single-center intervention implementation limited study generalizability. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy of interventions for reducing readmissions after pneumonia hospitalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.70073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Preventable hospital readmissions, reflecting suboptimal healthcare quality and increased costs, highlight the need for evidence to shape healthcare delivery.

Objectives: This systematic review assesses interventions to reduce readmissions following pneumonia-related hospitalizations.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception to May 29, 2024. English language peer-reviewed studies examining interventions to reduce readmissions after pneumonia hospitalization were selected. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated certainty of evidence using standardized assessment tools. When possible, study results were pooled using random-effects models.

Results: Of the 601 articles initially identified, 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Eight interventions were evaluated from eight retrospective cohort studies, five randomized controlled trials, and two pre-post trials. Hospital-based skilled nursing facilities, patient education, early postdischarge follow-up, nutrition supplementation, and a high physician-to-bed ratio were linked to reduced readmissions. Early mobilization also showed a significant reduction in readmissions (pooled odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75, 0.95; p = .005). Hospital participation in Accountable Care Organizations did not affect readmissions, and pharmacist-involved discharge similarly found no significant impact (pooled odds ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44, 1.01; p = .06). Risk of bias was high across most studies due to inadequate controlling for confounding variables.

Conclusion: Certainty of evidence was high for early mobilization, low for hospital-based skilled nursing facilities, and very low for pharmacist-involved discharge processes. Small sample size and single-center intervention implementation limited study generalizability. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy of interventions for reducing readmissions after pneumonia hospitalization.

减少肺炎住院后再入院的干预措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:可预防的医院再入院,反映了次优的医疗质量和增加的成本,强调需要证据来塑造医疗服务。目的:本系统综述评估减少肺炎相关住院后再入院的干预措施。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane Library和CINAHL自成立至2024年5月29日。我们选择了考察肺炎住院后减少再入院的干预措施的英文同行评议研究。两位作者独立提取数据,评估偏倚风险,并使用标准化评估工具评估证据的确定性。在可能的情况下,使用随机效应模型汇总研究结果。结果:在最初确定的601篇文章中,有15篇研究符合纳入标准。从8项回顾性队列研究、5项随机对照试验和2项前后试验中评估了8项干预措施。以医院为基础的熟练护理设施、患者教育、出院后早期随访、营养补充和高医床比与减少再入院有关。早期动员也显示再入院率显著降低(合并优势比= 0.84,95%可信区间[CI]: 0.75, 0.95;p = .005)。医院参与责任医疗组织不影响再入院,药师参与出院同样没有显著影响(合并优势比= 0.66,95% CI: 0.44, 1.01;p = .06)。由于对混杂变量的控制不充分,大多数研究的偏倚风险很高。结论:早期动员的证据确定性高,以医院为基础的熟练护理机构的证据确定性低,而药剂师参与的出院过程的证据确定性非常低。小样本量和单中心干预实施限制了研究的普遍性。需要随机对照试验来确定减少肺炎住院后再入院的干预措施的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信