Background: after hospitalisation for cardiac disease, older patients are at high risk of readmission and death. Objective: the cardiac care bridge (CCB) transitional care programme evaluated the impact of combining case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on hospital readmission and mortality. Design: single-blind, randomised clinical trial. Setting: the trial was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands between June 2017 and March 2020. Community-based nurses and physical therapists continued care post-discharge. Subjects: cardiac patients ≥ 70 years were eligible if they were at high risk of functional loss or if they had had an unplanned hospital admission in the previous 6 months. Methods: the intervention group received a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based integrated care plan, a face-to-face handover with the community nurse before discharge and follow-up home visits. The community nurse collaborated with a pharmacist and participants received home-based CR from a physical therapist. The primary composite outcome was first all-cause unplanned readmission or mortality at 6 months. Results: in total, 306 participants were included. Mean age was 82.4 (standard deviation 6.3), 58% had heart failure and 92% were acutely hospitalised. 67% of the intervention key-elements were delivered. The composite outcome incidence was 54.2% (83/153) in the intervention group and 47.7% (73/153) in the control group (risk differences 6.5% [95% confidence intervals, CI -4.7 to 18%], risk ratios 1.14 [95% CI 0.91-1.42], P = 0.253). The study was discontinued prematurely due to implementation activities in usual care. Conclusion: in high-risk older cardiac patients, the CCB programme did not reduce hospital readmission or mortality within 6 months.
BackgroundTo improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.MethodsWe conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsThe palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.ConclusionsThe pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.
MULTIFILE
Context: Inadequate handovers between hospital and home can lead to adverse health outcomes. A group particularly at risk is patients at the end of life because of complex health problems, frequent care transitions, and involvement of many professionals. Objectives: To investigate health care providers' views and experiences with regard to the transition from hospital to primary care in palliative care. Methods: This was a descriptive qualitative study. Three focus group discussions were held with 28 nurses and two focus groups with nine physicians. Participants were recruited from primary and hospital care. The focus groups were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. Results: The following themes emerged from the data: lack of identification of and communication about the last phase of life; incomplete and insufficient handover; and uncertainty about responsibilities. Professionals emphasize the importance of proper handovers and transitional processes in these vulnerable patients. The transition between hospital to primary care is hindered by a lack of identification of the palliative phase and uncertainties about patient awareness. Direct communication between professionals is needed but lacking. The handover itself is currently primarily focused on physical aspects where psychosocial aspects were also found necessary. Furthermore, uncertainties with regard to physicians' responsibility for the patient seem to further hinder professionals in the transitional process. Conclusion: Efforts should be made to enhance knowledge and skills around identification of palliative needs and communication with patients about the end of life, especially in the hospital setting.
