| Literature DB >> 35800645 |
Takeru Yoshimoto1, Nobutoshi Nawa2, Munenori Uemura3, Teppei Sakano3, Takeo Fujiwara1.
Abstract
Background: Information communication technology (ICT) is crucial to modern communication and information sharing. Effective interprofessional collaboration is essential in the care of elderly people. However, little is known about the effects of ICT on care provision for elderly people in a home setting. This retrospective cohort study examines the impact of interprofessional collaboration using ICT on the health outcomes of elderly home care patients.Entities:
Keywords: Interdisciplinary communication; aged; home care services; information technology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35800645 PMCID: PMC9249939 DOI: 10.1002/jgf2.534
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gen Fam Med ISSN: 2189-7948
FIGURE 1Enrollment of study participants. Selection of the study participants was performed based on the criteria shown
Demographic characteristics of study participants
| Variable | Total ( | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Age | Mean | 83.5 (7.3) |
| (in years) | ||
| Sex | Male | 227 (41.0) |
| Female | 327 (59.0) | |
| Nursing care level | Not certified | 1 (0.2) |
| Support level 1 | 9 (1.6) | |
| Support level 2 | 23 (4.2) | |
| Care level 1 | 105 (19.0) | |
| Care level 2 | 103 (18.6) | |
| Care level 3 | 88 (15.9) | |
| Care level 4 | 110 (19.9) | |
| Care level 5 | 115 (20.8) | |
| Living with someone | Yes | 174 (31.4) |
| No | 380 (68.6) | |
| Living environment | At home | 520 (93.9) |
| At care house | 34 (6.1) | |
| Median follow‐up (days) for developing any events or the censor | Median (Q1, Q3) | 579.0 (204.0, 1119.0) |
| Death | Yes | 102 (18.4) |
| No | 452 (81.6) | |
| Admission to hospital | Yes | 105 (19.0) |
| No | 449 (81.0) | |
| Admission to nursing home | Yes | 109 (18.7) |
| No | 445 (80.3) | |
| Experienced any of the events | Yes | 316 (57.0) |
| No | 238 (43.0) | |
| Treatment facility | A | 161 (29.1) |
| B | 229 (41.3) | |
| C | 84 (15.2) | |
| D | 44 (7.9) | |
| E | 36 (6.5) |
Demographic characteristics before and after propensity score matching
| Variable | Before PS matching ( |
| After PS matching ( |
| Bias (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | Information‐shared group ( | Control group ( | Information‐shared group ( | |||||
| Age (in years) | Mean | 81.9 (7.7) | 83.8 (7.2) | 0.028 | 82.3 (7.4) | 81.4 (7.3) | 0.426 | 12.4 |
| Sex | Male | 43 (52.4) | 184 (39.0) | 0.022 | 41 (51.3) | 47 (58.8) | 0.340 | 15.1 |
| Female | 39 (47.6) | 288 (61.0) | 39 (48.8) | 33 (41.3) | ||||
| Nursing care level | Not certified | 0 (0) | 1 (0.2) | 0.648 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.974 | |
| Support level 1 | 3 (3.7) | 6 (1.3) | 3 (3.8) | 2 (2.5) | ||||
| Support level 2 | 4 (4.9) | 19 (4.0) | 4 (5.0) | 3 (3.8) | 6.0 | |||
| Care level 1 | 14 (17.1) | 91 (19.3) | 14 (17.5) | 11 (13.8) | 9.7 | |||
| Care level 2 | 18 (22.0) | 85 (18.0) | 18 (22.5) | 19 (23.8) | 3.1 | |||
| Care level 3 | 15 (18.3) | 73 (15.5) | 13 (16.3) | 17 (21.3) | 13.3 | |||
| Care level 4 | 15 (18.3) | 95 (20.1) | 15 (18.8) | 15 (18.8) | 0.0 | |||
| Care level 5 | 13 (15.9) | 102 (21.6) | 13 (16.3) | 13 (16.3) | 0.0 | |||
| Living with someone | Yes | 25 (30.5) | 149 (31.6) | 0.846 | 25 (31.3) | 22 (27.5) | 0.603 | 8.1 |
| No | 57 (69.5) | 323 (68.4) | 44 (68.8) | 58 (72.5) | ||||
| Living environment | At home | 79 (96.3) | 441 (93.4) | 0.311 | 77 (96.3) | 79 (98.8) | 0.311 | 11.3 |
| At care house | 3 (3.7) | 31 (6.6) | 3 (3.8) | 1 (1.3) | ||||
| Median follow‐up (days) for developing any events or the censor | Median (Q1, Q3) | 408.5 (166.0, 936.0) | 605.5 (247.5, 1166.5) | 0.013 | 408.5 (166.5, 954.5) | 543 (190.5, 1095.5) | 0.199 | |
| Treatment facility | A | 42 (51.2) | 119 (25.2) | <0.001 | 40 (50.0) | 46 (57.5) | 0.569 | |
| B | 6 (7.3) | 223 (47.3) | 6 (7.5) | 6 (7.5) | 0.0 | |||
| C | 16 (19.5) | 68 (14.4) | 16 (20.0) | 18 (22.5) | 6.7 | |||
| D | 12 (14.6) | 32 (6.8) | 12 (15.0) | 6 (7.5) | 24.3 | |||
| E | 6 (7.3) | 30 (6.4) | 6 (7.5) | 4 (5.0) | 9.9 | |||
Risk of death, admission to hospital and admission to nursing home as events associated with interprofessional communication through digital platform prior to and after propensity score matching
| Prior to propensity score matching | After propensity score matching | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | Information‐shared group ( | Control group ( | Information‐shared group ( | ||
| Number of death (%) | 13 (15.9) | 89 (18.9) | 13 (16.3) | 15 (18.8) | |
| Number of admissions to hospital (%) | 26 (31.7) | 79 (16.7) | 25 (31.3) | 15 (18.8) | |
| Number of admissions to nursing home (%) | 20 (24.4) | 89 (18.9) | 20 (25.0) | 10 (12.5) | |
| Number of those who were censored (%) | 23 (28.1) | 215 (45.6) | 22 (27.5) | 40 (50.0) | |
| HR (95% CI) | Crude |
|
| ||
| Adjusted |
|
| |||
Bold indicates p < 0.05.
Adjusted for age, sex, living with someone, at home or care house, nursing care level, and treatment facility.
FIGURE 2Propensity score matched survival curve displaying the cumulative hazard ratios of composite events in the information‐shared and control groups. The cumulative hazard of adverse outcome is shown on the y‐axis. The x‐axis represents the number of days the patient received home care. Lines denote the information‐shared group (solid) and control group, without information sharing (dotted)