Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThygesen, LC
dc.contributor.authorFokdal, S
dc.contributor.authorGjørup, T
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, RS
dc.contributor.authorZwisler, A-D
dc.contributor.authorPrevention of Early Readmission Research Group
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-15T11:06:22Z
dc.date.issued2015-06-10
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To evaluate how municipality-based post-discharge follow-up visits including a general practitioner and municipal nurse affect early readmission among high-risk older people discharged from a hospital department of internal medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: Centrally randomized single-centre pragmatic controlled trial comparing intervention and usual care with investigator-blinded outcome assessment. INTERVENTION: The intervention was home visits with a general practitioner and municipal nurse within seven days of discharge focusing on medication, rehabilitation plan, functional level, and need for further health care initiatives. The visit was concluded by planning one or two further visits. Controls received standard health care services. PATIENTS: People aged 65 + years discharged from Holbæk University Hospital, Denmark, in 2012 considered at high risk of readmission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was readmission within 30 days. Secondary outcomes at 30 and 180 days included readmission, primary health care, and municipal services. Outcomes were register-based and analysis used the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 270 and 261 patients were randomized to intervention and control groups, respectively. The groups were similar in baseline characteristics. In all 149 planned discharge follow-up visits were carried out (55%). Within 30 days, 24% of the intervention group and 23% of the control group were readmitted (p = 0.93). No significant differences were found for any other secondary outcomes except that the intervention group received more municipal nursing services. CONCLUSION: This municipality-based follow-up intervention was only feasible in half the planned visits. The intervention as delivered had no effect on readmission or subsequent use of primary or secondary health care services.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThe Fund for Intersectoral Projects in Region Zealand, Denmark funded the project in 2011 and 2012. The funding agency had no influence on the analyses and interpretation of the results.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 33 (2), pp. 65 - 73en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3109/02813432.2015.1041831
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/26579
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26059872en_GB
dc.rights© 2015 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectCommunity health nursingen_GB
dc.subjectDenmarken_GB
dc.subjectfrail elderlyen_GB
dc.subjectpatient readmissionen_GB
dc.subjectpopulation registeren_GB
dc.subjectprimary health careen_GB
dc.subjectquality of health careen_GB
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trialen_GB
dc.subjectAgeden_GB
dc.subjectAged, 80 and overen_GB
dc.subjectContinuity of Patient Careen_GB
dc.subjectDelivery of Health Careen_GB
dc.subjectDenmarken_GB
dc.subjectFemaleen_GB
dc.subjectFrail Elderlyen_GB
dc.subjectGeneral Practitionersen_GB
dc.subjectHealth Services for the Ageden_GB
dc.subjectHome Care Servicesen_GB
dc.subjectHospitalsen_GB
dc.subjectHouse Callsen_GB
dc.subjectHumansen_GB
dc.subjectIntention to Treat Analysisen_GB
dc.subjectMaleen_GB
dc.subjectNursesen_GB
dc.subjectPatient Dischargeen_GB
dc.subjectPatient Readmissionen_GB
dc.subjectProgram Evaluationen_GB
dc.subjectReferral and Consultationen_GB
dc.subjectRisken_GB
dc.subjectStandard of Careen_GB
dc.titleCan municipality-based post-discharge follow-up visits including a general practitioner reduce early readmission among the fragile elderly (65+ years old)? A randomized controlled trialen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2017-03-15T11:06:22Z
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited Statesen_GB
dc.descriptionComparative Studyen_GB
dc.descriptionRandomized Controlled Trialen_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalScandinavian Journal of Primary Health Careen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record