Suppr超能文献

减少养老院的非计划性住院:系统评价。

Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review.

机构信息

School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Public co-applicant.

出版信息

Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Oct;11(18):1-130. doi: 10.3310/KLPW6338.

Abstract

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 ; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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,这些老年人有很高的计划外住院风险。虽然住院通常是必要的,但这些住院可能会令人痛苦,并提供机会成本和经济成本。

目的

我们的目标是更新 2014 年对减少养老院居民计划外入院干预措施的证据综述。我们通过综合这些干预措施对医院入院的效果、可行性和可接受性、成本和性价比、以及影响国际证据在英国环境中适用性的因素,对英国和其他高收入国家使用的干预措施进行了系统评价。

数据来源

我们于 2021 年 12 月在以下数据库中搜索了自 2014 年以来发表的研究:Cochrane 对照试验注册中心和 Cochrane 系统评价数据库;累积索引护理和联合健康文献;健康管理信息联盟;Medline;PsycINFO;科学和社会科学引文索引;社会护理在线;和社会服务摘要。还搜索了“灰色”文献(2022 年 1 月)和引文,并检查了参考文献列表。

方法

我们纳入了任何设计的研究,报告了在养老院(有或没有护理)或医院实施的干预措施,以减少计划外的住院治疗。从初步的范围搜索中开发了一种干预措施分类法。感兴趣的结果包括衡量对养老院居民计划外入院的影响措施;在英国实施的障碍/促进因素以及养老院居民、他们的家人和工作人员的可接受性。两名独立评审员进行了研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。我们使用已发表的框架提取干预措施特征、实施障碍/促进因素和国际证据适用性的数据。我们按干预类型和设置进行了叙述性综合。根据研究设计、研究数量和效果方向,使用基于框架评估入院减少的总体证据强度。

结果

我们纳入了 124 篇出版物/报告(30 篇来自英国)。为养老院提供额外支持的综合护理和质量改进计划(例如英国养老院先锋倡议和澳大利亚的医院服务)似乎与常规护理相比减少了计划外入院。更简单的培训和员工发展计划效果不一,针对特定问题(例如药物审查)的干预措施也是如此。预先护理计划是大多数质量改进计划成功的关键,但不入院的命令存在问题。定性研究确定了影响涉及护理人员、养老院工作人员和居民/家庭照顾者的决策的紧张局势。在面对不一致且普遍质量较低的证据的情况下,通过获得姑息治疗来减少临终前入院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能会减少计划外入院。大多数干预措施都很复杂,需要适应当地情况。卫生和社会保健之间的工作是成功实施的关键。

局限性

由于缺乏对照研究设计和样本量小等因素,确定的大部分证据质量较低。无法进行荟萃分析。

未来工作

我们确定需要改进经济证据,并评估医院为基础的团队提供的综合护理模式。鉴于养老院目前面临的巨大压力,研究人员应根据研究设计和数据收集的实际情况仔细考虑。

研究注册

本研究在 PROSPERO 数据库中注册,注册号为 CRD42021289418。

资金

该项目由英国国家卫生与保健研究院(NIHR)健康与社会保健交付研究计划资助(资助号 NIHR133884),并将在;第 11 卷,第 18 期。有关该项目的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验