ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
Two Dutch Examples of Acute Geriatric Community Hospitals for Older Adults: A Comparative Process Evaluation.
Article in International journal of integrated care. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Older adults with frailty are at high risk of adverse outcomes during hospitalisation. To address this, two Acute Geriatric Community Hospitals (AGCH1 and AGCH2) were established in the Netherlands. This study examined similarities and differences in setting, staffing, care pathways, patient populations, outcomes, and improvement opportunities in the first quarter of 2024. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation using questionnaires (n = 2), documents (n = 10), case vignettes (n = 20), case vignette surveys (n = 7), and focus groups (n = 2). Quantitative data on patients admitted between January 1 and March 31, 2024, (n = 161) were collected in aggregated form via the questionnaires and analysed descriptively; qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results: Both sites implemented the core model elements but varied in setting and staffing. Patients showed high multimorbidity with respiratory conditions and infections as common diagnoses. Across ten case vignettes per AGCH, experts reported variation in referral appropriateness. Mean length of stay was shorter at AGCH2 (9.0 vs. 12.5 days), while less patients were discharged home (51.7% vs. 70.3%). Focus groups highlighted seven improvement areas: referral, expectation management, discharge planning, IT integration, funding, and evening/night/weekend care. Conclusions: The two AGCHs appeared to have largely similar care pathways, patient populations, and improvement opportunities, but differed in context, staffing, and outcomes. Sustainable implementation requires continuous learning, clear referral pathways, and skill mix review; national scale-up demands effectiveness studies, role delineation, and defining core versus adaptable model elements.
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.