Mark Toles1, Cathleen Colón-Emeric2,3, Mary D Naylor4, Josephine Asafu-Adjei1, Laura C Hanson1. 1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Durham VA GRECC, Durham, North Carolina. 4. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Older adults that transfer from skilled nursing facilities (SNF) to home have significant risk for poor outcomes. Transitional care of SNF patients (i.e., time-limited services to ensure coordination and continuity of care) is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and relevance of the Connect-Home transitional care intervention, and to compare preparedness for discharge between comparison and intervention dyads. DESIGN: A non-randomized, historically controlled design-enrolling dyads of SNF patients and their family caregivers. SETTING: Three SNFs in the Southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Intervention dyads received Connect-Home; comparison dyads received usual discharge planning. Of 173 recruited dyads, 145 transferred to home, and 133 completed surveys within 3 days of discharge. INTERVENTION: The Connect-Home intervention consisted of tools and training for existing SNF staff to deliver transitional care of patient and caregiver dyads. MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility was assessed with a chart review. Relevance was assessed with a survey of staff experiences using the intervention. Preparedness for discharge, the primary outcome, was assessed with Care-Transitions Measure-15 (CTM-15). RESULTS: The intervention was feasible and relevant to SNF staff (i.e., 96.9% of staff recommended intervention use in the future). Intervention dyads, compared to comparison dyads, were more prepared for discharge (CTM-15 score 74.7 vs 65.3, mean ratio 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.24). CONCLUSION: Connect-Home is a promising transitional care intervention for older patients discharged from SNF care. The next step will be to test the intervention using a cluster randomized trial, with patient outcomes including re-hospitalization.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Older adults that transfer from skilled nursing facilities (SNF) to home have significant risk for poor outcomes. Transitional care of SNF patients (i.e., time-limited services to ensure coordination and continuity of care) is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and relevance of the Connect-Home transitional care intervention, and to compare preparedness for discharge between comparison and intervention dyads. DESIGN: A non-randomized, historically controlled design-enrolling dyads of SNF patients and their family caregivers. SETTING: Three SNFs in the Southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Intervention dyads received Connect-Home; comparison dyads received usual discharge planning. Of 173 recruited dyads, 145 transferred to home, and 133 completed surveys within 3 days of discharge. INTERVENTION: The Connect-Home intervention consisted of tools and training for existing SNF staff to deliver transitional care of patient and caregiver dyads. MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility was assessed with a chart review. Relevance was assessed with a survey of staff experiences using the intervention. Preparedness for discharge, the primary outcome, was assessed with Care-Transitions Measure-15 (CTM-15). RESULTS: The intervention was feasible and relevant to SNF staff (i.e., 96.9% of staff recommended intervention use in the future). Intervention dyads, compared to comparison dyads, were more prepared for discharge (CTM-15 score 74.7 vs 65.3, mean ratio 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.24). CONCLUSION: Connect-Home is a promising transitional care intervention for older patients discharged from SNF care. The next step will be to test the intervention using a cluster randomized trial, with patient outcomes including re-hospitalization.
Authors: Mary D Naylor; Linda H Aiken; Ellen T Kurtzman; Danielle M Olds; Karen B Hirschman Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Mark Toles; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Josephine Asafu-Adjei; Elizabeth Moreton; Laura C Hanson Journal: Geriatr Nurs Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 2.361
Authors: Randi E Berkowitz; Zachary Fang; Benjamin K I Helfand; Richard N Jones; Robert Schreiber; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Eric A Coleman; Jodi D Smith; Janet C Frank; Theresa B Eilertsen; Jill N Thiare; Andrew M Kramer Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Mark Toles; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Mary D Naylor; Julie Barroso; Ruth A Anderson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jennifer Leeman; Linda Beeber; Eric Hodges; Shawn Kneipp; Mark Toles; Seon Ae Yeo; Jessica Zègre-Hemsey Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Himali Weerahandi; Li Li; Haikun Bao; Jeph Herrin; Kumar Dharmarajan; Joseph S Ross; Kunhee Lucy Kim; Simon Jones; Leora I Horwitz Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Tenzin Wangmo; Yvonne Padrutt; Insa Koné; Thomas Gächter; Bernice S Elger; Agnes Leu Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jennifer L Carnahan; Lev Inger; Susan M Rawl; Tochukwu C Iloabuchi; Daniel O Clark; Christopher M Callahan; Alexia M Torke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Denise Cloutier; Kelli I Stajduhar; Della Roberts; Carren Dujela; Kaitlyn Roland Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 2.655