[Discharging patients with chronic disease: effect of various forms of cooperation between hospital and the community health service]

Holte HH, Lidal, IB, Gundersen MW
Record ID 32014001223
Authors' recomendations: The key results •We included 45 studies about coordination interventions, performed both with and without other interventions at the same time. This is a subject of substantial interest, and the studies also imply a large number of different way of operationalisating the concept. •Regardless of whether the coordination was studied as the only element in an intervention, or alongside other interventions, there were no sigificant differences between the intervention and control group for the outcomes readmissions and deaths. •Of four studies performed without other simultaneous interventions, only one was of such quality that we trust the documentation of effect of the intervention: ◦Inviting the GP to the hospital before discharge may possibly increase the proportion of geriatric patients receiving community services after 6 months, than if the GP is not invited. •In the remaining studies, the coordination was a part of a multifaceted intervention where also other interventions were performed simultaneously. It is possible that: ◦Coordinators provided with considerably more time than usually available, to provide case management, including telephone follow-up, liason with local councils and nursing agencies, coordination of service provision instead of usual hospital discharge planning may result in a higher proportion living at home after one month, a more extensive use of com­munity services, personal care and higher costs within 6 months. ◦Comprehensive geriatric assessment in addition to the usual emergency department care, and a referral faxed from the emergency department to the community agency to expedite home care services may result in lower use of nursing home after 30 days, but no significant differences in costs after 30 days and 6 months or in use of nursing home after 6 months. We evaluated the quality of the documentation for all the reported outcomes as low or very low. This means that we expect futher research to influence our conclusions.
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2013
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: Norway
MeSH Terms
  • Chronic Disease
Organisation Name: Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Contact Address: Universitetsgata 2, Postbox 7004 St. Olavs plass, NO-0310 Oslo NORWAY. Tel: +47 23 25 50 00; Fax: +47 23 25 50 10;
Contact Name: Berit.Morland@nokc.no, dagny.fredheim@nokc.no
Contact Email: Berit.Morland@nokc.no, dagny.fredheim@nokc.no
Copyright: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC)
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.