ReviewJournal of primary care & community health
Readmission After Geriatric Inpatient Care: A Narrative Review and a Comparative Analysis.
Review in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReadmission can be be related to the work of several stakeholders involved in the care of individuals throughout the community, including, for example, primary care and social care providers. A narrative review was performed to assess definitions and frequency of readmission for older adults found in previous research. In addition, a dataset for a cohort of older adults in Stockholm, Sweden, was used to quantify how different definitions of readmission affect frequency. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe review was based on pre-specified search criteria within PubMed and Embase databases. All studies based on a cohort of older adults with a primary objective to assess readmission to inpatient care, were included for the assessment of readmission criteria. The dataset was based on a cohort of older adults treated at a geriatric department in Stockholm during 2016. Estimations of readmission were performed with the most common criteria found in the narrative review.
resultsThe narrative review showed that definitions of readmission included predominantly time-based criteria, either alone or combined with additional criteria such as medical condition or readmitting department. Frequency of readmission based on different definitions varied substantially; a 14-day time interval implied a rate of 8.0% whilst a 30-day interval-more commonly used-rendered a rate of 12.6%. The density of readmissions per day was higher during the first weeks after discharge, and then dropped continuously.
conclusionTransparency on definitions is imperative in studies that include rates of readmission. The levels of readmission rates are highly dependent on the study population and its context. Furthermore, the actual value of readmission monitoring is dependent on what purpose it is supposed to fulfill, and it is essential to put it into context of all relevant stakeholders including, for example, the primary care providers and different social care providers throughout the community.
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.