Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30670526›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2019

Potentially avoidable hospitalisations of German nursing home patients? A cross-sectional study on utilisation patterns and potential consequences for healthcare.

Rüdiger Leutgeb, Sarah Jane Berger, Joachim Szecsenyi, Gunter Laux

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. [Health status of older people in long-term inpatient care-a narrative review].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cost-benefit analysis of the CoCare intervention to improve medical care in long-term care nursing homes: an analysis based on claims data.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. [Nursing home-sensitive conditions and approaches to reduce hospitalization of nursing home residents].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rüdiger LeutgebDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sarah Jane BergerDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Gunter LauxDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDemand for nursing home (NH) care is soaring due to gains in life expectancy and people living longer with chronic illness and disability. This is dovetailing with workforce shortages across the healthcare profession. Access to timely and appropriate medical care for NH residents is becoming increasingly challenging and can result in potentially avoidable hospitalisations (PAHs). In light of these factors, we analysed PAHs comparing NH patients with non-NH patients.

designCross-sectional study with claims data from 2015 supplied by a large German health insurance company within the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg.

settingOne-year observation of hospitalisation patterns for NH and non-NH patients.

participants3 872 245 of the 10.5million inhabitants of Baden-Wuerttemberg were covered.

methodsPatient data about hospitalisation date, sex, age, nationality, level of care and diagnoses were available. PAHs were defined based on international classification of diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses belonging to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). Adjusted ORs for PAHs for NH patients in comparison with non-NH patients were calculated with multivariable regression models.

resultsOf the 933 242 hospitalisations in 2015, there were 23 982 for 13 478 NH patients and 909 260 for 560 998 non-NH patients. Mean age of hospitalised NH patients and level of care were significantly higher than those of non-NH patients. 6449 PAHs (29.6%) for NH patients and 136 543 PAHs (15.02%) for non-NH patients were identified. The adjusted OR for PAHs was significantly heightened for NH patients in comparison with non-NH patients (OR: 1.22, CI (1.18 to 1.26), p<0.0001). Moreover, we could observe that more than 90% of PAHs with ACSCs were unplanned hospitalisations (UHs).

conclusionsLarge numbers of PAHs for NH patients calls for improved coordination of medical care, especially general practitioner service provision. Introduction of targeted training programmes for physicians and NH staff on health problem management for NH patients could perhaps contribute to reduction of PAHs, predominantly UHs.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedNursing HomesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisRegression Analysisgeriatric medicinehuman resource managementprimary carequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30670526
PMCPMC6347959
OpenAlexW2914283277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.