We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Three Different Outcomes in Older Community-dwelling Patients Receiving Intermediate Care in Nursing Home after Acute Hospitalization.
Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 2016 April
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the recovery and outcome of older communitydwelling patients admitted to intermediate care (IC) in nursing homes after acute hospitalization, and to compare patients who were able and unable to return directly to their own homes.
DESIGN: Prospective, observational, cohort study conducted between June 2011 and 2014.
SETTING: A 19- bed IC unit in a nursing home with increased multidisciplinary staffing.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 961 community-dwelling patients, ≥70 years of age, considered to have a rehabilitation potential and no major cognitive impairment or delirium, transferred from internal medicine, cardiac, pulmonary and orthopaedic hospital departments.
MEASUREMENTS: Demographic data, clinical information, comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), discharge destination and length of stay. Residence status and mortality 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months after discharge from the hospital.
RESULTS: The trajectory of recovery was divided into 3 groups: 1) Rapid recovery, able to return home after median 14 days in IC (n=785, 82%); 2) Slow recovery, requiring additional transfer to other nursing home after IC, but still able to return home within 2 months (n=106, 11%). 3) Poor recovery, requiring transfer to other nursing home after IC and still in a nursing home or dead at 2 months (n=66, 7%). Significant different clinical characteristics were demonstrated between the patients in the 3 groups. After 6 months, the recovery of patients with rapid or slow recovery was similar, 87% were living at home, compared to only 20% of the patients with poor recovery. In multiple logistic regression analysis, slow or poor recovery was significantly associated with low scores on the Barthel index and orthopaedic admission diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of patients selected for treatment in the IC unit were able to recover and return home, a group of patients needed extra time, up to 2 months, to recover and another group had a poor chance of recovering and returning home. Different caring pathways for different patient groups may be considered in the PAC setting.
DESIGN: Prospective, observational, cohort study conducted between June 2011 and 2014.
SETTING: A 19- bed IC unit in a nursing home with increased multidisciplinary staffing.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 961 community-dwelling patients, ≥70 years of age, considered to have a rehabilitation potential and no major cognitive impairment or delirium, transferred from internal medicine, cardiac, pulmonary and orthopaedic hospital departments.
MEASUREMENTS: Demographic data, clinical information, comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), discharge destination and length of stay. Residence status and mortality 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months after discharge from the hospital.
RESULTS: The trajectory of recovery was divided into 3 groups: 1) Rapid recovery, able to return home after median 14 days in IC (n=785, 82%); 2) Slow recovery, requiring additional transfer to other nursing home after IC, but still able to return home within 2 months (n=106, 11%). 3) Poor recovery, requiring transfer to other nursing home after IC and still in a nursing home or dead at 2 months (n=66, 7%). Significant different clinical characteristics were demonstrated between the patients in the 3 groups. After 6 months, the recovery of patients with rapid or slow recovery was similar, 87% were living at home, compared to only 20% of the patients with poor recovery. In multiple logistic regression analysis, slow or poor recovery was significantly associated with low scores on the Barthel index and orthopaedic admission diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of patients selected for treatment in the IC unit were able to recover and return home, a group of patients needed extra time, up to 2 months, to recover and another group had a poor chance of recovering and returning home. Different caring pathways for different patient groups may be considered in the PAC setting.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app