Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26999246›Full record

Observational studyThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2016

Three Different Outcomes in Older Community-dwelling Patients Receiving Intermediate Care in Nursing Home after Acute Hospitalization.

J F Abrahamsen, C Haugland, R M Nilsen, A H Ranhoff

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Assessment of recovery in older patients hospitalized with different diagnoses and functional levels, evaluated with and without geriatric assessment.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2016
    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

4 authors.

J F AbrahamsenJenny Foss Abrahamsen, Kavli Research Centre for Geriatrics and Dementia, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Ulriksdal 8, Bergen, 5009, Norway, +47 99514977, jennyfossabrahamsen@gmail.com.
C Haugland
R M Nilsen
A H Ranhoff

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the recovery and outcome of older communitydwelling patients admitted to intermediate care (IC) in nursing homes after acute hospitalization, and to compare patients who were able and unable to return directly to their own homes.

designProspective, observational, cohort study conducted between June 2011 and 2014.

settingA 19- bed IC unit in a nursing home with increased multidisciplinary staffing.

participantsA total of 961 community-dwelling patients, ≥70 years of age, considered to have a rehabilitation potential and no major cognitive impairment or delirium, transferred from internal medicine, cardiac, pulmonary and orthopaedic hospital departments. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic data, clinical information, comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), discharge destination and length of stay. Residence status and mortality 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months after discharge from the hospital.

resultsThe trajectory of recovery was divided into 3 groups: 1) Rapid recovery, able to return home after median 14 days in IC (n=785, 82%); 2) Slow recovery, requiring additional transfer to other nursing home after IC, but still able to return home within 2 months (n=106, 11%). 3) Poor recovery, requiring transfer to other nursing home after IC and still in a nursing home or dead at 2 months (n=66, 7%). Significant different clinical characteristics were demonstrated between the patients in the 3 groups. After 6 months, the recovery of patients with rapid or slow recovery was similar, 87% were living at home, compared to only 20% of the patients with poor recovery. In multiple logistic regression analysis, slow or poor recovery was significantly associated with low scores on the Barthel index and orthopaedic admission diagnosis.

conclusionsAlthough the majority of patients selected for treatment in the IC unit were able to recover and return home, a group of patients needed extra time, up to 2 months, to recover and another group had a poor chance of recovering and returning home. Different caring pathways for different patient groups may be considered in the PAC setting.

Indexed as

Intermediate Care FacilitiesNursing HomesPatient DischargeAgedAged, 80 and overGeriatric AssessmentHome Care ServicesHospital DepartmentsHospitalizationHospital UnitsHumansLength of StayProspective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26999246
PMCPMC12879765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.