Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35199849›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2022

Discharge planning from hospital.

Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley, Natasha A Lannin, Lindy Clemson, Ian D Cameron, Sasha Shepperd

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06608589 (CONSTELLATIONS Living Lab), which is not on this map. Cited by 110 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06608589 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

CONSTELLATIONS Living Lab: Development, Implementation and Evaluation of a Patient-oriented Quality Improvement Program Targeting Care Transitions of Older Adults Living with Major Neurocognitive Disorders and Their Caregivers.

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2023 to 2026Enrolled700ConditionsAlzheimer Disease, Dementia, Neurocognitive DeclineArmsCoMPAS+ MNCDs Program - Quality improvement program targeting the care transitions of patients living with a major neurocognitive disorder and their caregivers
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Risk of Hospital Readmission among People with CKD: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Daniela C Gonçalves-BradleyCenter for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Porto, Portugal.
Natasha A LanninBrain Recovery and Rehabilitation Group, Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Lindy ClemsonFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ian D CameronJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Sydney Medical School, Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, Australia.
Sasha ShepperdNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Sydney · AUCentre for Health Technology and Services Research · PTMonash University · AUUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDischarge planning is a routine feature of health systems in many countries that aims to reduce delayed discharge from hospital, and improve the co-ordination of services following discharge from hospital and reduce the risk of hospital readmission. This is the fifth update of the original review.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of planning the discharge of individual patients moving from hospital. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers on 20 April 2021. We searched two other databases up to 31 March 2020. We also conducted reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials that compared an individualised discharge plan with routine discharge that was not tailored to individual participants. Participants were hospital inpatients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data analysis and quality assessment using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. We grouped studies by older people with a medical condition, people recovering from surgery, and studies that recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When combining outcome data it was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes, we summarised the reported results for each trial in the text. MAIN

resultsWe included 33 trials (12,242 participants), four new trials included in this update. The majority of trials (N = 30) recruited participants with a medical diagnosis, average age range 60 to 84 years; four of these trials also recruited participants who were in hospital for a surgical procedure. Participants allocated to discharge planning and who were in hospital for a medical condition had a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay (MD - 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.33 to - 0.12; 11 trials, 2113 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a relative reduction in readmission to hospital over an average of three months follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; 17 trials, 5126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in participant's health status (mortality at three- to nine-month follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 8 trials, 2721 participants; moderate certainty) functional status and psychological health measured by a range of measures, 12 studies, 2927 participants;  low certainty evidence). There was some evidence that satisfaction might be increased for patients (7 trials), caregivers (1 trial) or healthcare professionals (2 trials) (very low certainty evidence). The cost of a structured discharge plan compared with routine discharge is uncertain (7 trials recruiting 7873 participants with a medical condition; very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS'

conclusionsA structured discharge plan that is tailored to the individual patient probably brings about a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay and readmissions to hospital for older people with a medical condition, may slightly increase patient satisfaction with healthcare received. The impact on patient health status and healthcare resource use or cost to the health service is uncertain.

Indexed as

Patient DischargePatient ReadmissionAgedAged, 80 and overHospitalsHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35199849
PMCPMC8867723
OpenAlexW4213443991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.