BACKGROUND: Health systems are faced with a large array of transitional care interventions and patient populations to whom such activities might apply. PURPOSE: To summarize the health and utilization effects of transitional care interventions, and to identify common themes about intervention types, patient populations, or settings that modify these effects. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1950-May 2014), reference lists, and technical advisors. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of transitional care interventions that reported hospital readmission as an outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted transitional care procedures, patient populations, settings, readmissions, and health outcomes. We identified commonalities and compiled a narrative synthesis of emerging themes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 10 reviews of mixed patient populations, there was consistent evidence that enhanced discharge planning and hospital-at-home interventions reduced readmissions. Among 7 reviews in specific patient populations, transitional care interventions reduced readmission in patients with congestive heart failure and general medical populations. In general, interventions that reduced readmission addressed multiple aspects of the care transition, extended beyond hospital stay, and had the flexibility to accommodate individual patient needs. There was insufficient evidence on how caregiver involvement, transition to sites other than home, staffing, patient selection practices, or care settings modified intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Successful interventions are comprehensive, extend beyond hospital stay, and have the flexibility to respond to individual patient needs. The strength of evidence should be considered low because of heterogeneity in the interventions studied, patient populations, clinical settings, and implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND: Health systems are faced with a large array of transitional care interventions and patient populations to whom such activities might apply. PURPOSE: To summarize the health and utilization effects of transitional care interventions, and to identify common themes about intervention types, patient populations, or settings that modify these effects. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1950-May 2014), reference lists, and technical advisors. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of transitional care interventions that reported hospital readmission as an outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted transitional care procedures, patient populations, settings, readmissions, and health outcomes. We identified commonalities and compiled a narrative synthesis of emerging themes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 10 reviews of mixed patient populations, there was consistent evidence that enhanced discharge planning and hospital-at-home interventions reduced readmissions. Among 7 reviews in specific patient populations, transitional care interventions reduced readmission in patients with congestive heart failure and general medical populations. In general, interventions that reduced readmission addressed multiple aspects of the care transition, extended beyond hospital stay, and had the flexibility to accommodate individual patient needs. There was insufficient evidence on how caregiver involvement, transition to sites other than home, staffing, patient selection practices, or care settings modified intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Successful interventions are comprehensive, extend beyond hospital stay, and have the flexibility to respond to individual patient needs. The strength of evidence should be considered low because of heterogeneity in the interventions studied, patient populations, clinical settings, and implementation strategies.
Authors: Kristina M Cordasco; Susan M Frayne; Devan Kansagara; Donna M Zulman; Steven M Asch; Robert E Burke; Edward P Post; Stephan D Fihn; Thomas Klobucar; Laurence J Meyer; Susan R Kirsh; David Atkins Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gregory J Fermann; Phillip D Levy; Peter Pang; Javed Butler; S Imran Ayaz; Douglas Char; Patrick Dunn; Cathy A Jenkins; Christy Kampe; Yosef Khan; Vijaya A Kumar; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Dandan Liu; Karen Miller; W Frank Peacock; Samaa Rizk; Chad Robichaux; Russell L Rothman; Jon Schrock; Adam Singer; Sarah A Sterling; Alan B Storrow; Cheryl Walsh; John Wilburn; Sean P Collins Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Ben J Marafino; Alejandro Schuler; Vincent X Liu; Gabriel J Escobar; Mike Baiocchi Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: David T Liss; Ronald T Ackermann; Andrew Cooper; Emily A Finch; Courtney Hurt; Nicola Lancki; Angela Rogers; Avani Sheth; Caroline Teter; Christine Schaeffer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard B Balaban; Fang Zhang; Catherine E Vialle-Valentin; Alison A Galbraith; Marguerite E Burns; Marc R Larochelle; Dennis Ross-Degnan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stephen F Jencks; Alyson Schuster; Geoff B Dougherty; Sule Gerovich; Jane E Brock; Amy J H Kind Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kristin Levoy; Eleanor Rivera; Molly McHugh; Alexandra Hanlon; Karen B Hirschman; Mary D Naylor Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Andrew McWilliams; Jason Roberge; William E Anderson; Charity G Moore; Whitney Rossman; Stephanie Murphy; Stephannie McCall; Ryan Brown; Shannon Carpenter; Scott Rissmiller; Scott Furney Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Suzanne E Mitchell; Vivian Laurens; Gabriela M Weigel; Karen B Hirschman; Allison M Scott; Huong Q Nguyen; Jessica Martin Howard; Lance Laird; Carol Levine; Terry C Davis; Brianna Gass; Elizabeth Shaid; Jing Li; Mark V Williams; Brian W Jack Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 5.166