Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27778333›Full record

Trial reportHealth services research2016

Personalizing Nursing Home Compare and the Discharge from Hospitals to Nursing Homes.

Dana B Mukamel, Alpesh Amin, David L Weimer, Heather Ladd, Joseph Sharit, Ran Schwarzkopf, Dara H Sorkin

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Public Reporting on long-term Care Facilities in Germany: Current State and Evaluation of Quality Information].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Dana B MukamelDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA.
Alpesh AminDepartment of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA.
David L WeimerDepartment of Political Science, Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Heather LaddDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA.
Joseph SharitCenter on Aging, Mental Health Hospital Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL.
Ran SchwarzkopfNYU Langone Seaport Orthopaedics, New York, NY.
Dara H SorkinDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA.

Funding

Patient Centered Quality ReportingR21HS021844 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI MUKAMEL, DANA B · 2012 to 2014
$924k
AHRQ HHS R21 HS021844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test whether use of a personalized report card, Nursing Home Compare Plus (NHCPlus), embedded in a reengineered discharge process, can lead to better outcomes than the usual discharge process from hospitals to nursing homes. DATA SOURCES/

settingPrimary data collected in the Departments of Medicine and Surgery at a University Medical Center between March 2014 and August 2015. STUDY

designA randomized controlled trial in which patients in the intervention group were given NHCPlus. Participants included 225 patients or their family members/surrogates. DATA COLLECTION: Key strokes of NHCPlus users were recorded to obtain information about usage. Users were surveyed about usability and satisfaction with NHCPlus. All participants were surveyed at discharge from the hospital. Survey data were merged with medical records. PRINCIPAL

findingsAbout 85 percent of users indicated satisfaction with NHCPlus. Compared to controls, intervention patients were more satisfied with the choice process (by 40 percent of the standard deviation p < .01), more likely to go to higher ranked five-star nursing homes (OR = 1.8, p < .05), traveled to further nursing homes (IRR = 1.27, p < .10), and had shorter hospital stays (IRR = 0.84, p < .05).

conclusionsPersonalizing report cards and reengineering the discharge process may improve quality and may lower costs compared to the usual discharge process.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision Support TechniquesHospitalsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMobile ApplicationsNursing HomesPatient DischargePatient SatisfactionQuality Indicators, Health Carehospital dischargenursing home compareNursing homesqualityreport cards

Identifiers

PMID27778333
PMCPMC5134132

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.