ArticleHealth services insights2025
A Qualitative Study Examining the Unintended Consequences from Implementing a Case Management Team to Reduce Avoidable Hospital Readmission in Singapore.
Article in Health services insights, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Countries are implementing interventions to reduce avoidable hospital readmissions. However, evaluating such interventions are potentially complex. These interventions can cause unintended consequences, and they are among the most common causes of the intervention's failure. The objective of this study was to identify the unintended consequences from implementing a pilot case management team to reduce avoidable hospital readmissions at a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Methods: We conducted five in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who were involved in the planning, development, and implementation of the intervention in addition to analysing 12 intervention documents. Deductive thematic analysis using Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory was conducted. Results: Data analysis generated seven subthemes: ineffective targeting of patient population, fund constraints, lack of patient ownership, limited post discharge follow up, comprehensive care approaches, role overlap and patient confusion. The absence of a readmission risk assessment tool resulted in care plan needs assessments being conducted for all admitted patients, rather than targeting those who would benefit most. This broad approach overwhelmed care coordination efforts. The initial plan to form a specialised intervention team responsible for care plan needs assessments could not be fully established due to funding constraints. As a result, the intervention team functioned more as a consulting service, providing recommendations to the primary team, which retained decision-making authority. Overlapping roles with existing case managers caused patient confusion, prompting the intervention team to step back and support care plan needs assessment remotely. Conclusion: Overall, results suggest that intervention team recognised a problem and participated in the intervention. This became the foundation for implementing change. However, the unintended consequences undermined the intervention from achieving its objectives and as a result the intervention was stopped. Decision-makers should pay attention to these unintended consequences to inform effective implementation and refine future interventions.
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.