Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443516›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Effectiveness of intermediate care in nursing-led in-patient units.

P D Griffiths, M H Edwards, A Forbes, R L Harris, G Ritchie

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P D GriffithsKing's College London, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Room 3.29b JCMB, Waterloo Road, London, UK, SE1 8WA. peter.griffiths@kcl.ac.uk
M H Edwards
A Forbes
R L Harris
G Ritchie
King's College London · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Nursing led inpatient Unit (NLU) is one of a range of services that have been considered in order to manage more successfully the transition between hospital and home for patients with extended recovery times. This is an update of an earlier review published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2004.

objectivesTo determine whether nursing-led inpatient units are effective in preparing patients for discharge from hospital compared to usual inpatient care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, BNI and HMIC databases. Citation searches were undertaken on the science and social science citation indices. Authors were contacted to identify additional data. The initial search was done in January 2001. The register search was updated in October 2006, the other database searches were updated in November 2006 and the citation search was run in January 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials and interrupted time series designs that compared the NLU to usual inpatient care managed by doctors. Patients over 18 years of age following an acute hospital admission for a physical health condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN

resultsTen random or quasi-random controlled trials reported on a total of 1896 patients. There was no statistically significant effect on inpatient mortality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.16) or mortality to longest follow up (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29) but higher quality studies showed a larger non-significant increase in inpatient mortality (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.68). Discharge to institutional care was reduced for the NLU (OR 0.44 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89) and functional status at discharge increased (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.54) but there was a near significant increase in inpatient stay (WMD 5.13 days 95% CI -0.5 days to 10.76 days). Early readmissions were reduced (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80). One study compared a NLU for the chronically critically ill with ICU care. Mortality (OR 0.62 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10) and length of inpatient stay differ did not differ (WMD 2 days, 95% CI 10.96 to -6.96 days). Early readmissions were reduced (OR 0.33 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94). Costs of care on the NLU were higher for UK studies but lower for US based studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is some evidence that patients discharged from a NLU are better prepared for discharge but it is unclear if this is simply a product of an increased length of inpatient stay. No statistically significant adverse effects were noted but the possibility of increased early mortality cannot be discounted. More research is needed.

Indexed as

Intermediate Care FacilitiesPatient DischargeSkilled Nursing FacilitiesHealth Care CostsHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayPatient ReadmissionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17443516
PMCPMC7017859
OpenAlexW2020156703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.