Outcomes of a Nursing Home-to-Community Care Transition Program.

OBJECTIVES: Most transitional care initiatives to reduce rehospitalization have focused on the transition that occurs between a patient's hospital discharge and return home. However, many patients are discharged from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) to their homes. The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCT) program (hereafter called program) among patients discharged from SNFs to their homes. DESIGN: Propensity-matched control-intervention trial. INTERVENTION: Patients in the intervention group received care management following nursing stay (a home visit and nursing phone calls). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled after discharge from an SNF to home were matched to patients who did not receive intervention because of refusal, program capacity, or distance. Patients were aged ≥60 years, at high risk for hospitalization, and discharged from an SNF. METHODS: Program enrollees were matched through propensity score to nonenrollees on the basis of age, sex, comorbid health burden, and mortality risk score. Conditional logistic regression analysis examined 30-day hospitalization and emergency department (ED) use; Cox proportional hazards analyses examined 180-day hospital stay and ED use. RESULTS: Each group comprised 160 patients [mean (standard deviation) age, 85.4 (7.4) years]. Thirty-day hospitalization and ED rates were 4.4% and 10.0% in the program group and 3.8% and 10.0% in the group with usual care (P = .76 for hospitalization; P > .99 for ED). At 180 days, hospitalization and ED rates were 30.6% and 46.3% for program patients compared with 11.3% and 25.0% in the comparison group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We found no evidence of reduced hospitalization or ED visits by program patients vs the comparison group. Such findings are crucial because they illustrate how aggressive stabilization care within the SNF may mitigate the program role. Furthermore, we found higher ED and hospitalization rates at 180 days in program patients than the comparison group.

Care Coordination From a Strengths Perspective: A Practice-Based Evidence Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practice.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is critical to accurately represent strengths interventions to improve data and enable intervention effectiveness research from a strengths perspective. However, it is challenging to understand strengths interventions from the multiple perspectives of computerized knowledge representation, evidence-based practice guidelines, and practice-based evidence narratives. Intervention phrases abstracted from nurse care coordinator practice narratives described strengths interventions with community-dwelling elders. This project aims were to (a) compare nurse care coordinator use of evidence-based interventions as described in the two guidelines (what to do and how to do it), (b) analyze nurse care coordinator intervention tailoring (individualized care), and (c) evaluate the usefulness of the Omaha System for comparison of narrative phrases to evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: Phrases from expert nurse care coordinators were mapped to the Omaha System for comparison with the guidelines interventions and were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Venn diagrams were used to visually depict intervention overlap between the guidelines and the phrases. RESULTS: Empirical evaluation of 66 intervention phrases mapped to 14 problems using 3 category terms and 19 target terms showed alignment between guidelines and the phrases, with the most overlap across two guidelines and the phrases in categories, and the most diversity in care descriptions. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the value in having both standardized guidelines and expert clinicians who see the whole person and can synthesize and apply guidelines in tailored ways. There is potential to create a feedback loop between practice-based evidence and evidence-based practice by expanding this approach to use of practice-generated Omaha System data as practice-based evidence. Further research is needed to refine and advance the use of these methods with additional practices and guidelines.