Holstege M S, Bakkers E, van Balen R, Gussekloo J, Achterberg W P, Caljouw M A A
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Research and Innovation, Evean, Purmerend, The Netherlands.
Pieter van Foreest, Delft, The Netherlands.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Dec;64:13-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.09.005. Epub 2016 Sep 12.
In geriatric rehabilitation it is important to have timely discharge of patients, especially if they have low nursing support needs. However, no instruments are available to identify early discharge potential.
To evaluate if weekly scoring of a nursing support scorecard in the evenings/nights and discussing the results in the multidisciplinary team meeting, leads to potential differences in discharge of geriatric rehabilitation patients.
Quasi-experimental study with a reference cohort (n=200) and a Back-Home implementation cohort (n=283).
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients in geriatric rehabilitation in the four participating skilled nursing facilities in the Netherlands.
Implementation of the nursing support scorecard during one year consisted of (1) weekly scoring of the scorecard to identify the supporting nursing tasks during the evenings/nights by trained nurses, and (2) discussion of the results in a multidisciplinary team meeting to establish if discharge home planning was feasible. Data on patients' characteristics and setting before admission were collected at admission; at discharge, the length of stay, discharge destination and barriers for discharge were collected by the nursing staff.
Both cohorts were comparable with regard to median age, gender [reference cohort: 81 (IQR 75-88) years; 66% females vs. Back-Home cohort 82 (IQR 76-87) years; 71% females] and reasons for admission: stroke (23% vs. 23%), joint replacement (12% vs. 13%), traumatic injuries (31% vs. 34%), and other (35% vs. 30%). Overall, the median length of stay for the participants discharged home in the reference cohort was 56 (IQR 29-81) days compared to 46 (IQR 30-96) days in the Back-Home cohort (p=0.08). When no home adjustments were needed, participants were discharged home after 50 (IQR 29.5-97) days in the reference cohort, and after 42.5 (IQR 26-64.8) days in the Back-Home cohort (p=0.03). Reasons for discharge delay were environmental factors (36.7%) and patient-related factors, such as mental (21.5%) and physical capacity (33.9%).
Structured scoring of supporting nursing tasks for geriatric rehabilitation patients may lead to earlier discharge from a skilled nursing facility to home, if no home adjustments are needed.
在老年康复中,及时让患者出院很重要,尤其是那些护理支持需求较低的患者。然而,目前尚无工具可用于识别早期出院的可能性。
评估在傍晚/夜间对护理支持计分卡进行每周评分,并在多学科团队会议上讨论结果,是否会导致老年康复患者出院情况出现潜在差异。
采用参考队列(n = 200)和“回家”实施队列(n = 283)的准实验研究。
设置/参与者:荷兰四家参与研究的专业护理机构中接受老年康复治疗的患者。
在一年时间内实施护理支持计分卡,包括:(1)由经过培训的护士每周对计分卡进行评分,以确定傍晚/夜间的支持性护理任务;(2)在多学科团队会议上讨论结果,以确定回家计划是否可行。入院时收集患者入院前的特征和环境数据;出院时,护理人员收集住院时间、出院目的地和出院障碍等数据。
两个队列在年龄中位数、性别方面具有可比性[参考队列:81(四分位间距75 - 88)岁;女性占66%,而“回家”队列82(四分位间距76 - 87)岁;女性占71%]以及入院原因:中风(23%对23%)、关节置换(12%对13%)、创伤性损伤(31%对34%)和其他(35%对30%)。总体而言,参考队列中回家的参与者的住院时间中位数为56(四分位间距29 - 81)天,而“回家”队列中为46(四分位间距30 - 96)天(p = 0.08)。当不需要进行家庭调整时,参考队列中的参与者在50(四分位间距29.5 - 97)天后回家,而“回家”队列中在42.5(四分位间距26 - 64.8)天后回家(p = 0.03)。出院延迟的原因是环境因素(36.7%)和与患者相关的因素,如精神状况(21.5%)和身体能力(载33.9%)。
对于老年康复患者,对支持性护理任务进行结构化评分可能会使患者在不需要进行家庭调整的情况下,更早地从专业护理机构出院回家。