Predicting Discharge Destination in Older People From Acute General Medical Wards: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of 23 Assessment Tools.

BACKGROUND: Predicting discharge in older people from general medicine wards is challenging. It requires consideration of function, mobility, and cognitive levels, which vary within the cohort and may fluctuate over a short period. A previous systematic review identified 23 assessment tools associated with discharge destination in this cohort; however, the psychometric properties of these tools have not been explored. PURPOSE: To evaluate, synthesize, and compare the psychometric properties of 23 assessment tools used to predict discharge destination from acute general medical wards. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Evidence-Based Medicine Review databases. Studies were included if participants were from general medicine or acute geriatric wards and investigated at least one psychometric property (reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, hypothesis testing, and structural or criterion validity) in 23 previously identified assessment tools. Data were extracted and methodological quality were assessed independently by 2 assessors using the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measure INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. As per the COSMIN checklist, results were rated against "sufficient," "insufficient," or "indeterminate." RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) was the most rigorously evaluated assessment tool; it scored "sufficient" psychometric properties in 5 of 7 psychometric categories. The Alpha Functional Independence Measure (AlphaFIM), Barthel Index, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) demonstrated "sufficient" psychometric properties in at least 3 psychometric categories. The remainder of the tools (n = 19, 83%) had "sufficient" psychometric properties in 2 or fewer psychometric categories. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, out of 23 assessment tools associated with discharge destination in acute general medicine, the DEMMI has the strongest psychometric properties. Other tools with substantial evidence in this cohort include the AlphaFIM, MMSE, and Barthel Index. Research is required to thoroughly evaluate the psychometric properties of the remaining tools, which have been insufficiently researched to date. Results can be used by physical therapists to guide selection of appropriate tools to assess mobility and predict discharge destination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A priori, PROSPERO (CRD 42017064209).

Models of intensive care unit follow-up care and feasibility of intervention delivery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The optimal model of outpatient intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up care remains uncertain, and there is limited evidence of benefit. RESEARCH QUESTION: The objective of this research is to describe existing models of outpatient ICU follow-up care, quantify participant recruitment and retention, and describe facilitators of patient engagement. STUDY DESIGN & METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was undertaken in June 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts against eligibility criteria. Studies of adults with any outpatient ICU follow-up were included. Studies were excluded if published before 1990, not published in English, or of paediatric patients. Quantitative data were extracted using predefined data fields. Key themes were extracted from qualitative studies. Risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 531 studies were screened. Forty-seven studies (32 quantitative and 15 qualitative studies) with a total of 5998 participants were included. Of 33 quantitative study interventions, the most frequently reported model of care was in-person hospital-based interventions (n = 27), with 10 hybrid (part in-hospital, part remote) interventions. Literature was limited for interventions without hospital attendance (n = 6), including telehealth and diaries. The median ranges of rates of recruitment, rates of intervention delivery, and retention to outcome assessment for hospital-based interventions were 51.5% [24-94%], 61.9% [8-100%], and 52% [8.1-82%], respectively. Rates were higher for interventions without hospital attendance: 82.6% [60-100%], 68.5% [59-89%], and 75% [54-100%]. Facilitators of engagement included patient-perceived value of follow-up, continuity of care, intervention accessibility and flexibility, and follow-up design. Studies had a moderate risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: Models of post-ICU care without in-person attendance at the index hospital potentially have higher rates of recruitment, intervention delivery success, and increased participant retention when compared to hospital-based interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021260279.

Assessment tools and factors used to predict discharge from acute general medical wards: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To identify assessment tools and patient factors statistically associated with discharge destination in general medical inpatients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched. Studies were eligible if they were a quantitative study design, had adult acute general medical inpatients and published in English. Outcomes of interest were tools or factors with statistical correlations with discharge destination (home, subacute or residential care). Articles were screened by two independent assessors. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer. Data were analysed/described descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included. Twenty-three tools and 44 factors were identified, which spanned Health Condition, Body Structure and Function, Activity, Participation, Environment and Personal concepts of the World Health Organisation International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (WHO ICF). CONCLUSIONS: The large number of tools and factors found and their distribution across several WHO ICF concepts exemplifies the complexities of predicting discharge. No single assessment tool that best predicts discharge destination was identified, but rather there were a variety of potential tools identified. Further research is needed to determine the psychometric properties of the identified assessment tools as well as additional predictors of subacute care (including rehabilitation). This is important as it may allow for timely clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A priori, PROSPERO (CRD42017064209).IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThis systematic review identified a large number of assessment tools and patient factors associated with discharge destination (home, subacute and residential care) in general medical inpatients.All of the domains of the WHO ICF framework are associated with discharge destination and must be considered.Clinicians in the acute setting can use these findings to assist selection of assessment tools to identify patients likely to need rehabilitation or subacute care.Early identification of patients who are unable to return to their place of residence is essential as it allows for provision of early rehabilitation and subsequent discharge planning.