Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24167538›Full record

SynthesisOntario health technology assessment series2013

Discharge planning in chronic conditions: an evidence-based analysis.

K McMartin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Technology-assisted congestive heart failure care.Current heart failure reports · 2015
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

K McMartin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronically ill people experience frequent changes in health status accompanied by multiple transitions between care settings and care providers. Discharge planning provides support services, follow-up activities, and other interventions that span pre-hospital discharge to post-hospital settings.

objectiveTo determine if discharge planning is effective at reducing health resource utilization and improving patient outcomes compared with standard care alone. DATA SOURCES: A standard systematic literature search was conducted for studies published from January 1, 2004, until December 13, 2011. REVIEW

methodsReports, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses with 1 month or more of follow-up and limited to specified chronic conditions were examined. Outcomes included mortality/survival, readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits, hospital length of stay (LOS), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and patient satisfaction.

resultsOne meta-analysis compared individualized discharge planning to usual care and found a significant reduction in readmissions favouring individualized discharge planning. A second meta-analysis compared comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support to usual care. There was a significant reduction in readmissions favouring discharge planning with postdischarge support. However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity. For both meta-analyses there was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality between the study arms. LIMITATIONS: There was difficulty in distinguishing the relative contribution of each element within the terms "discharge planning" and "postdischarge support." For most studies, "usual care" was not explicitly described.

conclusionsCompared with usual care, there was moderate quality evidence that individualized discharge planning is more effective at reducing readmissions or hospital LOS but not mortality, and very low quality evidence that it is more effective at improving HRQOL or patient satisfaction. Compared with usual care, there was low quality evidence that the discharge planning plus postdischarge support is more effective at reducing readmissions but not more effective at reducing hospital LOS or mortality. There was very low quality evidence that it is more effective at improving HRQOL or patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Patient DischargeChronic DiseaseHealth StatusHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayOntarioPatient ReadmissionQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID24167538
PMCPMC3804053

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.