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
31-12-2022
Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop practical recommendations for physiotherapy for survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus study was performed. A scoping literature review formed the basis for three Delphi rounds. The first round was used to gather input from the panel to finalize the survey for the next two rounds in which the panel was asked to rank each of the statements on an ordinal scale with the objective to reach consensus. Consensus was defined as a SIQR of ≤ 0.5. Ten Dutch panelists participated in this study: three primary care physiotherapists, four intensive care physiotherapists, one occupational therapist, one ICU-nurse and one former ICU-patient. All involved professionals have treated survivors of critical illness. Our study was performed in parallel with an international Delphi study with hospital-based health-care professionals and researchers. Results: After three Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 95.5% of the statements. This resulted in practical recommendations for physiotherapy for critical illness survivors in the primary care setting. The panel agreed that the handover should include information on 14 items. Physiotherapy treatment goals should be directed toward improvement of aerobic capacity, physical functioning, activities in daily living, muscle strength, respiratory and pulmonary function, fatigue, pain, and health-related quality of life. Physiotherapy measurements and interventions to improve these outcomes are suggested. Conclusion: This study adds to the knowledge on post-ICU physiotherapy with practical recommendations supporting clinical decision-making in the treatment of survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge.
