Damery Sarah, Flanagan Sarah, Combes Gill
Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 21;6(11):e011952. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011952.
To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of integrated care interventions in reducing hospital activity.
Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Interventions must have delivered care crossing the boundary between at least two health and/or social care settings.
Adult patients with one or more chronic diseases.
MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (HTA database, DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), EPPI-Centre, TRIP, HEED, manual screening of references.
Any measure of hospital admission or readmission, length of stay (LoS), accident and emergency use, healthcare costs.
50 reviews were included. Interventions focused on case management (n=8), chronic care model (CCM) (n=9), discharge management (n=15), complex interventions (n=3), multidisciplinary teams (MDT) (n=10) and self-management (n=5). 29 reviews reported statistically significant improvements in at least one outcome. 11/21 reviews reported significantly reduced emergency admissions (15-50%); 11/24 showed significant reductions in all-cause (10-30%) or condition-specific (15-50%) readmissions; 9/16 reported LoS reductions of 1-7 days and 4/9 showed significantly lower A&E use (30-40%). 10/25 reviews reported significant cost reductions but provided little robust evidence. Effective interventions included discharge management with postdischarge support, MDT care with teams that include condition-specific expertise, specialist nurses and/or pharmacists and self-management as an adjunct to broader interventions. Interventions were most effective when targeting single conditions such as heart failure, and when care was provided in patients' homes.
Although all outcomes showed some significant reductions, and a number of potentially effective interventions were found, interventions rarely demonstrated unequivocally positive effects. Despite the centrality of integrated care to current policy, questions remain about whether the magnitude of potentially achievable gains is enough to satisfy national targets for reductions in hospital activity.
CRD42015016458.
总结关于综合护理干预在减少医院活动方面有效性的证据。
对系统评价和荟萃分析的伞形综述。
干预措施必须提供跨越至少两个卫生和/或社会护理环境边界的护理。
患有一种或多种慢性病的成年患者。
MEDLINE、Embase、ASSIA、PsycINFO、HMIC、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆(卫生技术评估数据库、DARE、Cochrane系统评价数据库)、EPPI中心、TRIP、HEED,参考文献手工筛选。
任何入院或再入院指标、住院时间、急诊使用情况、医疗费用。
纳入50项综述。干预措施集中在病例管理(n = 8)、慢性病护理模式(CCM)(n = 9)、出院管理(n = 15)、综合干预(n = 3)、多学科团队(MDT)(n = 10)和自我管理(n = 5)。29项综述报告至少一项结局有统计学上的显著改善。11/21项综述报告急诊入院显著减少(15 - 50%);11/24项显示全因再入院(10 - 30%)或特定疾病再入院(15 - 50%)显著减少;9/16项报告住院时间减少1 - 7天,4/9项显示急诊使用显著降低(30 - 40%)。10/25项综述报告成本显著降低,但提供的有力证据很少。有效的干预措施包括出院后有支持的出院管理、由具备特定疾病专业知识的团队、专科护士和/或药剂师组成的多学科团队护理以及作为更广泛干预辅助手段的自我管理。当针对单一疾病如心力衰竭,以及在患者家中提供护理时,干预措施最为有效。
尽管所有结局都有一定程度的显著降低,并且发现了一些潜在有效的干预措施,但干预措施很少显示出明确的积极效果。尽管综合护理在当前政策中处于核心地位,但对于潜在可实现收益的幅度是否足以满足国家减少医院活动的目标,仍存在疑问。
CRD42015016458。