ArticlePrimary health care research & development2018
Shifting care from community hospitals to intensive community support: a mixed method study.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Models of community hospitals and state of research in high-income countries: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim To examine how the introduction of intensive community support (ICS) affected admissions to community hospital (CH) and to explore the views of patients, carers and health professionals on this transition.
backgroundICS was introduced to provide an alternative to CH provision for patients (mostly very elderly) requiring general rehabilitation.
methodRoutine data from both services were analysed to identify the number of admissions and length of stay between September 2012 and September 2014. In total, 10 patients took part in qualitative interviews. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were undertaken with 19 staff members, including managers and clinicians. Findings There were 5653 admissions to CH and 1710 to ICS between September 2012 and September 2014. In the five months before the introduction of ICS, admission rates to CH were on average 217/month; in the final five months of the study, when both services were fully operational, average numbers of patients admitted were: CH 162 (a 25% reduction), ICS 97, total 259 (a 19% increase). Patients and carers rated both ICS and CH favourably compared with acute hospital care. Those who had experienced both services felt each to be appropriate at the time; they appreciated the 24 h availability of staff in CH when they were more dependent, and the convenience of being at home after they had improved. In general, staff welcomed the introduction of ICS and appreciated the advantages of home-based rehabilitation. Managers had a clearer vision of ICS than staff on the ground, some of whom felt underprepared to work in the community. There was a consensus that ICS was managing less complex and dependent patients than had been envisaged.
conclusionICS can provide a feasible adjunct to CH that is acceptable to patients. More work is needed to promote the vision of ICS amongst staff in both community and acute sectors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.