Paul Y Takahashi1, Anupam Chandra2, Rozalina G McCoy3, Lynn S Borkenhagen4, Mary E Larson5, Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir4, Joel A Hickman6, Kristi M Swanson6, Gregory J Hanson7, James M Naessens8. 1. Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: takahashi.paul@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Employee and Community Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Community Palliative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Most transitional care initiatives to reduce rehospitalization have focused on the transition that occurs between a patient's hospital discharge and return home. However, many patients are discharged from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) to their homes. The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCT) program (hereafter called program) among patients discharged from SNFs to their homes. DESIGN: Propensity-matched control-intervention trial. INTERVENTION: Patients in the intervention group received care management following nursing stay (a home visit and nursing phone calls). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled after discharge from an SNF to home were matched to patients who did not receive intervention because of refusal, program capacity, or distance. Patients were aged ≥60 years, at high risk for hospitalization, and discharged from an SNF. METHODS: Program enrollees were matched through propensity score to nonenrollees on the basis of age, sex, comorbid health burden, and mortality risk score. Conditional logistic regression analysis examined 30-day hospitalization and emergency department (ED) use; Cox proportional hazards analyses examined 180-day hospital stay and ED use. RESULTS: Each group comprised 160 patients [mean (standard deviation) age, 85.4 (7.4) years]. Thirty-day hospitalization and ED rates were 4.4% and 10.0% in the program group and 3.8% and 10.0% in the group with usual care (P = .76 for hospitalization; P > .99 for ED). At 180 days, hospitalization and ED rates were 30.6% and 46.3% for program patients compared with 11.3% and 25.0% in the comparison group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We found no evidence of reduced hospitalization or ED visits by program patients vs the comparison group. Such findings are crucial because they illustrate how aggressive stabilization care within the SNF may mitigate the program role. Furthermore, we found higher ED and hospitalization rates at 180 days in program patients than the comparison group.
OBJECTIVES: Most transitional care initiatives to reduce rehospitalization have focused on the transition that occurs between a patient's hospital discharge and return home. However, many patients are discharged from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) to their homes. The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCT) program (hereafter called program) among patients discharged from SNFs to their homes. DESIGN: Propensity-matched control-intervention trial. INTERVENTION: Patients in the intervention group received care management following nursing stay (a home visit and nursing phone calls). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled after discharge from an SNF to home were matched to patients who did not receive intervention because of refusal, program capacity, or distance. Patients were aged ≥60 years, at high risk for hospitalization, and discharged from an SNF. METHODS: Program enrollees were matched through propensity score to nonenrollees on the basis of age, sex, comorbid health burden, and mortality risk score. Conditional logistic regression analysis examined 30-day hospitalization and emergency department (ED) use; Cox proportional hazards analyses examined 180-day hospital stay and ED use. RESULTS: Each group comprised 160 patients [mean (standard deviation) age, 85.4 (7.4) years]. Thirty-day hospitalization and ED rates were 4.4% and 10.0% in the program group and 3.8% and 10.0% in the group with usual care (P = .76 for hospitalization; P > .99 for ED). At 180 days, hospitalization and ED rates were 30.6% and 46.3% for program patients compared with 11.3% and 25.0% in the comparison group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We found no evidence of reduced hospitalization or ED visits by program patients vs the comparison group. Such findings are crucial because they illustrate how aggressive stabilization care within the SNF may mitigate the program role. Furthermore, we found higher ED and hospitalization rates at 180 days in program patients than the comparison group.
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Cynthia L Leibson; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Stephanie M Peterson; James M Naessens; Rozalina G Mccoy; Gregory J Hanson; Latonya J Hickson; Christina Yy Chen; Parvez A Rahman; Nilay D Shah; Lynn Borkenhagen; Anupam Chandra; Rachel Havyer; Aaron Leppin; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Christina Y Chen; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Stephen S Cha; Gregory J Hanson; Stephanie M Peterson; Parvez A Rahman; James M Naessens; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jennifer L Carnahan; James E Slaven; Christopher M Callahan; Wanzhu Tu; Alexia M Torke Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Gregory J Hanson; Bijan J Borah; James P Moriarty; Jeanine E Ransom; James M Naessens; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Paul Y Takahashi; Lindsey R Haas; Stephanie M Quigg; Ivana T Croghan; James M Naessens; Nilay D Shah; Gregory J Hanson Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Heather Personett May; Abby K Krauter; Dawn M Finnie; Rozalina Grubina McCoy; Kianoush B Kashani; Joan M Griffin; Erin F Barreto Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.006