减少护理院的非计划住院人数:一项系统综述。

Duncan Chambers, Anna Cantrell, Louise Preston, Carl Marincowitz, Lynne Wright, Simon Conroy, Adam Lee Gordon
{"title":"减少护理院的非计划住院人数:一项系统综述。","authors":"Duncan Chambers,&nbsp;Anna Cantrell,&nbsp;Louise Preston,&nbsp;Carl Marincowitz,&nbsp;Lynne Wright,&nbsp;Simon Conroy,&nbsp;Adam Lee Gordon","doi":"10.3310/KLPW6338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. 'Grey' literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents' care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Duncan Chambers,&nbsp;Anna Cantrell,&nbsp;Louise Preston,&nbsp;Carl Marincowitz,&nbsp;Lynne Wright,&nbsp;Simon Conroy,&nbsp;Adam Lee Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/KLPW6338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. 'Grey' literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents' care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/KLPW6338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/KLPW6338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:养老院主要照顾有复杂健康和护理需求的老年人,他们有很高的意外入院风险。虽然这种录取通常是必要的,但可能会令人痛苦,并带来机会成本和财务成本。目标:我们的目标是更新2014年干预措施的证据审查,以减少护理院居民的计划外入院。我们对英国和其他高收入国家使用的干预措施进行了系统审查,综合了这些干预措施对住院人数影响的证据;可行性和可接受性;成本和物有所值;以及影响国际证据适用于英国环境的因素。数据来源:2021年12月,我们在以下数据库中搜索了自2014年以来发表的研究:Cochrane对照试验中央登记册和Cochrane系统评价数据库;护理及相关健康文献累积索引;健康管理信息联盟;Medline;PsycINFO;科学与社会科学引文索引;在线社会关怀;和社会服务摘要检索格雷的文献(2022年1月)和引文,并检查参考文献列表。方法:我们纳入了任何设计报告干预措施的研究,这些干预措施是在养老院(有或没有护理)或医院提供的,以减少计划外住院人数。干预措施的分类法是从最初的范围搜索中发展起来的。感兴趣的结果包括对护理院居民计划外入院的影响测量;在英国实施的障碍/促进者以及护理院居民、他们的家人和工作人员的可接受性。研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两名独立评审员进行。我们使用已发表的框架提取了有关干预特征、实施障碍/促进者和国际证据适用性的数据。我们进行了一个按干预类型和背景分组的叙事综合。使用基于研究设计、研究数量和效果方向的框架来评估减少入院的总体证据强度。结果:我们纳入了124份出版物/报告(30份来自英国)。为养老院提供额外支持的综合护理和质量改善计划(例如,英国养老院先锋计划和澳大利亚的医院服务)似乎减少了与常规护理相比的计划外入院人数。更简单的培训和员工发展举措显示出喜忧参半的结果,旨在解决特定问题的干预措施(如药物审查)也是如此。提前护理计划是大多数质量改进计划成功的关键,但不住院订单是有问题的。定性研究确定了影响护理人员、护理院工作人员和居民/家庭护理人员决策的紧张关系。面对不一致且质量普遍较低的证据,通过获得姑息治疗来减少临终入院人数的最佳方法尚不清楚。结论:在居民护理途径的各个阶段有效实施干预措施可以减少非计划入院。大多数干预措施都很复杂,需要适应当地情况。在卫生和社会护理之间的接口工作是成功实施的关键。局限性:由于不受控制的研究设计和小样本量等因素,许多已确定的证据质量较低。无法进行荟萃分析。未来的工作:我们发现需要改进经济证据,并评估医院团队提供的那种综合护理模式。考虑到目前养老院面临的巨大压力,研究人员应该仔细考虑在研究设计和数据收集方面什么是现实的。研究注册:该研究注册为PROSPERO数据库CRD42021289418。资助:该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助(奖项编号NIHR13384),并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第11卷第18期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review.

Background: Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.

Objectives: Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.

Data sources: We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. 'Grey' literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.

Methods: We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.

Results: We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.

Conclusions: Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents' care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.

Limitations: Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.

Future work: We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.

Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信