What Interventions have been used in the UK in response to Winter Pressures? Mapping review of Studies/Initiatives relating to Discharge Planning and/or Integrated Care
========================================================================================================================================================================

* Anna Cantrell
* Duncan Chambers
* Andrew Booth

## Abstract

**Background** Winter pressures are a familiar phenomenon within the NHS and represent the most extreme of many regular demands placed on health and social care service provision. This review focuses on a part of the pathway that is particularly problematic: the discharge process from hospital to social care and the community. Although studies of discharge are plentiful, we identified a need to focus on identifying interventions and initiatives that are a specific response to “winter pressures”. This mapping review will focus on interventions or initiatives in relation to winter pressures in the United Kingdom with either discharge planning to increase smart discharge (both a reduction in patients waiting to be discharged and patients being discharged to the most appropriate place) and/or integrated care.

**Methods** We conducted a mapping review of UK evidence published 2018-2022. Initially, we searched MEDLINE, HMIC, Social Care Online, Social Sciences Citation Index and Kings Fund Library to find relevant interventions in conjunction with winter pressures. From these interventions we created a taxonomy of intervention types and draft map. A second broader stage of searching was then undertaken for named candidate interventions on Google Scholar. For each taxonomy heading we produced a table with definition, findings from research studies, local initiatives and systematic reviews, and evidence gaps.

**Results** The taxonomy developed was split into structural, changing staff behaviour, changing community provision, integrated care, targeting carers, modelling and workforce planning. The last two categories were excluded from the scope. Within the different taxonomy sections we generated a total of 41 headings. These were further organised into the different stages of the patient pathway: hospital avoidance, alternative delivery site, facilitated discharge and cross-cutting. The evidence for each heading was summarised in tables and evidence gaps were identified.

**Conclusions** Few initiatives identified were specifically identified as a response to winter pressures. Discharge to assess and Hospital at home interventions are heavily used and well-supported by the evidence but other responses, while also heavily used, were based on limited evidence. There is a lack of studies considering patient, family and provider needs when developing interventions aimed at improving delayed discharge. Additionally, there is a shortage of studies that measure the longer-term impact of interventions. Hospital avoidance and discharge planning are whole system approaches. Considering the whole health and social care system is imperative to ensure that implementing an initiative in one setting does not just move the problem to another setting.

**Limitations** Time limitations for completing the review constrained the time for additional searches. This may carry implications for the completeness of the evidence base identified.

**Future work** Further research to consider a realist review that views approaches across the different sectors within a whole system evaluation frame.

Keywords
*   Winter pressures
*   discharge planning
*   smart discharge
*   integrated care
*   mapping review

## Plain English Summary

The NHS struggles with winter pressures every year due to rises in respiratory and cardiovascular problems during the winter months. This mapping review aimed to map the evidence around what has been done to minimise winter pressures related to discharge planning and integrated care to make suggestions for future research. Good research evidence was identified for acute medical units, discharge to assess and hospital at home. The evidence for many other activities to minimise the impact of winter pressures was case studies, conference presentations or small low methodological quality research studies. The research has identified many different initiatives with diverse labels and the need to consider the effect implementing an initiative in one setting could have on another setting. It would be useful to consider further review work around what works for whom in what circumstances and why based on common mechanisms within the different initiatives and across the whole health and social care system.

## Scientific summary

### Introduction

The term “winter pressures” refers to “how hospitals cope with the challenges of maintaining regular service over the winter period”. Attention often focuses on additional demands on Accident and Emergency Services but pressures are exerted in terms of increased demand across the entire health and social care system. Increased prevalence of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses during the winter places severe demands upon systems that already face difficulties in matching service provision to demand. Better or earlier planning and/or increasing service provision across integrated care systems, and related sectors such as housing, constitute just two of the possible responses to increased demand.

Winter pressures are a familiar phenomenon within the NHS and represent the most extreme of many regular demands placed on health service provision. The impact of winter pressures is pervasive and operates along a continuum from public health, in mitigation via immunisation campaigns, through to discharge into social care and the community. Interventions target multiple points along this continuum, as well as whole system approaches.

This mapping review focuses on one stage of the pathway, considered particularly problematic, namely the discharge process from hospital. Studies of discharge interventions and transfers of care are plentiful and international initiatives are reviewed in a recent scoping review. However, a considerable challenge lies in identifying interventions that specifically are articulated as an explicit response to “winter pressures”. There is strong rationale for focusing on the sub-group of “winter pressures” interventions as specific interventions implemented in response to acute and severe system pressure. This contrasts to interventions that seek to improve discharge within a system in “steady state”. While commentators on the current context articulate that the system experiences “winter pressures” all year round, until recently responses have targeted the context of winter pressures. Potentially, this set of studies therefore represents a highly relevant evidence base on discharge related interventions to inform current NHS planning.

This mapping review aims to chart and document the evidence in relation to winter pressures in the United Kingdom together with either discharge planning to increase discharge (both a reduction in patients waiting to be discharged and patients being discharged to the most appropriate place) and/or integrated care. For the purposes of this review “integrated care” involves partnerships of organisations that come together to plan and deliver joined up health and care services (NHS England).

The primary objective of the mapping review is to address the question: 

*   Which interventions in relation to discharge planning/integrated care have been suggested, tried or evaluated in seeking to address winter pressures in the United Kingdom?

The secondary review question is: 

*   Which research or evaluation gaps exist in relation to service- or system-level interventions as a response to discharge planning/integrated care in the context of winter pressures?

In addressing this question the mapping review will seek: 

*   To identify a potential winter pressures research agenda in relation to discharge planning/integrated care to inform commissioning of future research.

### Methods

We conducted a mapping review of UK evidence published 2018-2022. For the mapping review we used a two stage search process to search for the evidence. Initially, we searched MEDLINE, HMIC, Social Care Online, Social Sciences Citation Index and Kings Fund Library to find relevant interventions. The search was broad for terms for winter pressures. Searches on google scholar which search the full-text instead of just title and abstract included terms for discharge and integrated care. Study screening and selection was undertaken in excel by three reviewers who independently screened the title and abstracts of the 723 references which were retrieved by the search. Study eligibility was based on following (Population-Exposure-Comparative-Outcome(s)-Study Types i.e. PECOS) aspects: 

*   Users of UK health and/or social care systems (Population)

*   Winter pressures impacting on discharge, to social care and the community, and integrated care (Exposure)

*   Other foreseeable, unusual or exceptional periods of demand (if appropriate) (Comparison – may or may not be present)

*   Increased smart discharge (both a reduction in patients waiting to be discharged and patients being discharged to the most appropriate place), system effects, health and health service outcomes, effects on patients, carers and staff (Outcomes)

*   Eligible types of study design (primary research study, evidence synthesis or research report) (Study types)

To classify within the broader thematic groups of interventions, we developed a taxonomy (see the Excel spreadsheet) documenting the candidate interventions together with other relevant supporting literature. Our team started from categories developed by the Cochrane EPOC (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care) Group for their systematic reviews of discharge planning. These were further expanded using categories from a rapid review produced by the Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash University. This process resulted in the following broad groupings: Structural (S), Changing Staff Behaviour (CSB), Changing Community Provision (CCP), Integrated Care, and Targeting Carers (TC). The draft taxonomy was reviewed for parsimony (to minimise duplication of concepts) and comprehensiveness (to include all named interventions identified to date). However, published commentary has documented the non-exclusivity and lack of precision of existing labels. Following the production of the draft map using the taxonomy we decided to further split the taxonomy headings to represent contributions to the patient pathway: hospital avoidance, alternate delivery site, facilitated discharge and cross-cutting. The modelling and workforce planning groupings were not considered as within scope and were therefore discarded.

The second stage of searching consisted of searches for named candidate interventions from the literature and current practice on Google Scholar. The second stage was to identify where possible reviews, ideally systematic reviews and these searches were broader than winter pressures but were limited to research published from 2012-2022. The second stage searches helped in completing the intervention tables and identifying the evidence gaps. Research priorities were classified as high, moderate or low and further classified by the nature of the evidence gap(s) identified (research gap, synthesis gap and/or implementation gap).

### Results

The taxonomy consists of a total of 41 headings. These were further organised into the different contributions to the patient pathway: hospital avoidance, alternative delivery site, facilitated discharge and cross-cutting. The evidence for each heading was provided and this helped with identification of the evidence gaps. Within structural interventions for the hospital avoidance part of the patient pathway research gap were identified for same day emergency care and research and implementation gaps for surgical hubs. The alternative delivery sites subsection is populated by systematic review evidence for the effectiveness of acute medical units, other specialist units developing using winter funding need to be fully evaluated. Models based on ‘discharge to assess’ (D2A, also ‘Home First’ and others) within facilitated discharge are relatively well researched. Some taxonomy headings, e.g. ‘bed management’ and ‘discharge co-ordinators’, were often evaluated within a broader process of ‘discharge planning’. ‘Patient flow’ is another broad heading with some overlap with both ‘bed management’ and discharge planning. The concept of ‘patient flow’ is also broader than facilitated discharge, although its ultimate goal is ensuring safe discharge as soon as is clinically appropriate. The evidence base for initiatives defined as ‘cross-cutting’ varied widely and was characterised by case studies with a lack of research studies. Community provision initiatives and integrated care were heterogeneous and characterised by multiple diverse initiatives, largely unevaluated, and by involvement of multiple contributors and sectors.

Overall, the evidence base is characterised by large numbers of case studies, often published online or presented at conferences, and relatively few peer-reviewed journal articles. Case studies are often accompanied by guidance to support implementation of changes to services. This distribution of evidence probably reflects the urgent need to develop and implement solutions to the ever increasing winter (and increasingly year-round) pressures on the health and care system. The majority of evaluations report positive effects on important outcomes such as length of hospital stay but many are uncontrolled or based on small samples, meaning that they need to be interpreted with caution.

### Conclusions

Few initiatives identified were specifically implemented as a response to winter pressures. Hospital at home, as a heavily used intervention, was well-supported by the evidence but other responses while also heavily used were based on limited evidence. There is a lack of studies considering patient, family and provider needs when developing interventions aimed at improving delayed discharge. Additionally, few studies measure the impact of interventions over a long time, short-term results can appear promising but evidence for longer-term sustainability is notably absent. Hospital avoidance and delayed discharge requires a whole system approach. It is imperative to consider the whole system to ensure that implementing an initiative in one setting does not just move the problem to another setting.

### Limitations

Time limitations for completing the review constrained the time for additional searches with a focus on systematic reviews and high-profile studies. This carries implications for the variability of coverage and completeness of the evidence base identified.

### Implications for service delivery

Effective interventions to avoid hospital admission, deliver services in different settings and facilitate discharge are key to reducing short-term acute pressures on health and social care. These pressures are generally associated with the winter period but have increasingly been experienced throughout the year and are particularly acute at the time of writing (January 2023). Longer-term improvements to service delivery may require policy changes related to investment and workforce planning that are outside the scope of this review.

### Implications for research

We identified high priority topics for primary research and evaluation in all the broad groupings of taxonomy headings as follows: 

*   Changing community provision (CCP): Private sector, Step up facilities

*   Changing staff behaviour (CSB): Clinical audit, QI programmes, Protocols/guidelines, Quality management systems

*   Integrated care (IC): Integrated care discharge huddle

*   Structural (S): Bed management, Extra service delivery, Governance, Monitoring and review, Same day services, Specialist units, Volunteers

In terms of evidence synthesis, our detailed exploration further supports the need for a realist review that views approaches across the different sectors within a whole system evaluation frame. Further evidence synthesis should consider identified synthesis gaps in research within the aforementioned areas.

## Introduction

### Background

The term “winter pressures” refers to “how hospitals cope with the challenges of maintaining regular service over the winter period”. Although attention typically focuses on additional demands on Accident and Emergency Services, pressures are exerted in terms of increased demand across the entire health and social care system. Increased prevalence of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses during the winter places severe demands upon systems that already face difficulties in matching service provision to demand. Better or earlier planning and/or increasing service provision across integrated care systems, and related sectors such as housing, constitute just two of the possible responses to increased demand.

The Covid 19 pandemic response illustrates many issues that need to be addressed in planning for hospital discharge when the health system faces specific expected or unexpected system pressure. Whilst very large numbers were rapidly discharged to care home beds in the early months of the pandemic, the discharge process generated significant concerns about whether the associated risks to both the discharged patients and the care homes had been sufficiently considered in the discharge planning process.

Winter pressures are a familiar phenomenon within the NHS and represent the most extreme of many regular demands placed on health service provision. The impact of winter pressures is pervasive and operates along a continuum from public health, in mitigation via immunisation campaigns, through to discharge into social care and the community. Interventions target multiple points along this continuum, as well as whole system approaches.

This mapping review focuses on one stage of the pathway, considered particularly problematic, namely the discharge process from hospital. Studies of discharge interventions and transfers of care are plentiful and international initiatives are reviewed in a recent scoping review. However, a considerable challenge lies in identifying interventions that specifically are articulated as an explicit response to “winter pressures”. There is strong rationale for focusing on the sub-group of “winter pressures” interventions because these may represent interventions implemented in response to particularly acute and severe system pressure. This contrasts to interventions that seek to improve discharge within a system in “steady state”. While commentators on the current context articulate that the system experiences “winter pressures” all year round, until recently responses have targeted the context of winter pressures. Potentially, this set of studies therefore represents a highly relevant evidence base on discharge related interventions to inform current NHS planning.

This mapping review aims to chart and document the evidence in relation to winter pressures in the United Kingdom together with either discharge planning to increase discharge (both a reduction in patients waiting to be discharged and patients being discharged to the most appropriate place) and/or integrated care1. The objectives are: 

*   To document and describe potential and evaluated interventions that seek to address issues and challenges in relation to discharge planning/integrated care in the context of winter pressures in the United Kingdom;

*   To identify research or evaluation gaps relating to service- or system-level interventions in response to discharge planning/integrated care in the context of winter pressures;

*   To identify a potential winter pressures research agenda in relation to discharge planning/integrated care to inform commissioning of future research.

### Objective of the Review

The primary objective of the mapping review is to address the question: 

*   Which interventions in relation to discharge planning/integrated care have been suggested, tried or evaluated in seeking to address winter pressures in the United Kingdom?

The secondary review question is: 

*   Which research or evaluation gaps exist in relation to service- or system-level interventions as a response to discharge planning/integrated care in the context of winter pressures?

In addressing this question the mapping review will seek: 

*   To identify a potential winter pressures research agenda in relation to discharge planning/integrated care to inform commissioning of future research.

## Methods

We undertook a systematic mapping review to map the winter pressure literature, specifically in relation to discharge planning and integrated care and, to help to determine opportunities for further research. The mapping review will aim to explore the volume and characteristics of the available evidence in relation to discharge planning or integrated care in response to winter pressures.

The systematic mapping review closely adhered to published methods for a mapping review. The methodology described by James and colleagues4 was used to guide the five stages of the review; setting the scope and inclusion criteria; searching for evidence; screening evidence; coding and database production; describing and visualising the findings.

### 1. Setting the scope and inclusion criteria

This mapping review focuses on interventions designed to reduce clinically unnecessary occupancy of hospital beds and demand on health services through discharge and transfer to social care or the community (e.g. “hospital at home”). Such interventions typically require improved linkages and communication between various health and social care services, captured in the concept of integrated care. Integrated care systems seek to capitalise on the benefits of such “joined-up” systems.

Key to feasibility is the requirement for study authors to have linked their research or data explicitly to “winter pressures”. Numerous interventions have been proposed to handle discharge planning but not all have been explored within the context of a pressurised health or social care system. Insisting on this requirement helped in identifying interventions or mechanisms that offer promise within other pressurised care environments. Specifically, we based eligibility on the following (Population-Exposure-Comparative-Outcome(s)-Study Types i.e. PECOS) aspects: 

*   Users of UK health and/or social care systems (Population)

*   Winter pressures impacting on discharge, to social care and the community, and integrated care (Exposure)

*   Other foreseeable, unusual or exceptional periods of demand (if appropriate) (Comparison – may or may not be present)

*   Increased smart discharge (both a reduction in patients waiting to be discharged and patients being discharged to the most appropriate place), system effects, health and health service outcomes, effects on patients, carers and staff (Outcomes)

*   Eligible types of study design (primary research study, evidence synthesis or research report) (Study types)

### 2. Searching for evidence

The mapping review took a two pronged approach to identify the evidence for this review. The first stage search identified the interventions through explicit references to winter pressures. The second stage of further searching was undertaken of named interventions extending beyond winter pressures. on Google Scholar to find systematic reviews and guidance. More detail is provided below.

#### First Stage Search

For the first stage search the literature search employed two separate methods according to the type of source being utilised. We searched databases that offer title and abstract search facilities using terminology relating to winter pressures. We examined retrieved items identified as initially relevant at full-text to establish whether they contain data within the context of discharge planning or integrated care. We searched data sources that enable full-text searching e.g. Google Scholar and other web-searches by combining the winter pressure terms with the twin concepts of discharge planning and/or integrated care.

##### Search terms and languages

The literature search covered the period 2018-2022 and was restricted to English only. This search cut-off date was determined by the need to optimise the relevance to the current context and ways of working. However, we have documented UK studies published before 2018 referenced in evidence syntheses or research reports as still being of contemporary relevance. International intervention in systematic reviews as mapped. We extracted findings from these studies for completeness.

**Concept 1:** Winter pressure(s); winter plan(s)/planning; winter resilience; Winter protection plan.

**Concept 2:** discharge plan(s)/planning; delayed transfer of care; discharge to assess; better care fund, increased smart discharge (both a reduction in patients waiting to be discharged and patients being discharged to the most appropriate place)

**Concept 3:** integrated care

An initial search was conducted in October on Medline and then translated to the other databases, the Medline search strategy is provided in Appendix 1. The search utilised free-text terms for winter pressures and winter planning. We were unable to identify specific relevant thesaurus terms for winter pressures. To optimise sensitivity of the search we did not use specific discharge/integrated care terminology in the search strategy but decided that judgements on discharge planning/integrated care context be operationalized during title/abstract and full-text screening stages rather than rely on uneven application of database indexing.

##### Databases searched

*   Medline Ovid Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions <1946 to October 11, 2022>

*   HMIC Ovid: HMIC Health Management Information Consortium <1979 to July 2022>

*   Social Care Online

*   SSCI: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)—1900-present

*   Kings Fund Library

Google scholar was also searched through Publish and Perish

The following organisation websites were also searched to identify report about initiatives to improve discharge planning or integrated care process: 

*   British Medical Association

*   Department of Health and Social Care

*   Health Foundation

*   Kings Fund digital archive

*   The Nuffield Trust

Searches on Google were also undertaken for winter pressures and discharge OR integrated care limited to NHS, GOV or org sites.

#### Second stage search

The second stage of searching was searches of google scholar for named candidate interventions from the literature and current practice. The searches were on Google Scholar for evidence broader than winter pressures. These searches were intended to retrieve reviews, ideally systematic reviews and were limited to research published from 2012-2022. These searches helped with completing the intervention tables and identifying the evidence gaps.

### 3. Screening evidence

Study screening and selection was undertaken in Microsoft Excel. A team of three reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 723 references from the searches. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria for titles and abstracts or items with insufficient detail on content relating to discharge planning or integrated care were reviewed at full-text.

#### Study validity assessment

The primary purpose of the mapping review was to create a profile of the available evidence base and this was then used to identify potential evidence and synthesis gaps. We assessed individual studies at a study design level and not through individual critical appraisal. Initially identified items were categorised as primary research, evidence synthesis, or research report. The last of these identified reports from organisations such as the Nuffield Trust, King’s Fund, Health Foundation that combine critical commentary, usually with primary data. Outputs from governmental or professional organisations will be processed in a similar way. We identified research gaps from the distribution of primary studies and their research questions, summaries from evidence syntheses and recommendations from research reports. We then evaluated the authority and credibility of the research gaps accordingly.

### 4. Coding and database production

Meta-data extraction and coding for studies was undertaken using Microsoft Excel. For mapping purposes, references were categorised at title and abstract stage according to study design, characteristics and broad thematic content. A data coding spreadsheet was used to code data for study type, population, intervention (if present), outcomes or findings and conclusion. Following granular coding we then classified related studies within broader thematic categories that were be used to present study characteristics and to structure an accompanying narrative. Due to the time and resource constraints of the proposed work, missing or unclear information was not solicited from authors.

### 5. Describing and visualising the findings

#### Development of taxonomy

To classify into the broader thematic groups of interventions, we developed a taxonomy (see the Excel spreadsheet) documenting the candidate interventions together with other relevant supporting literature. Our team started from categories developed by the Cochrane EPOC (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care) Group for their systematic reviews of discharge planning (cited by Parker et al. 2002). These were further expanded using categories from a rapid review produced by the Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash University.

This process resulted in the following broad groupings: Structural (S), Changing Staff Behaviour (CSB), Changing Community Provision (CCP), Integrated Care, and Targeting Carers (TC). The draft taxonomy was reviewed for parsimony (to minimise duplication of concepts) and comprehensiveness (to include all named interventions identified to date). However, published commentary has documented the non-exclusivity and lack of precision of existing labels. Following the production of the draft map using the taxonomy we decided that it would be useful to split the taxonomy headings into the following categories: hospital avoidance, alternate delivery site, facilitated discharge and cross-cutting. The Integrated Care and Targeting Carers groupings were not used and were therefore discarded,

#### Producing the map

Once the taxonomy was developed, tested and agreed we mapped candidate interventions to the taxonomy to produce the draft map. Following changes to the taxonomy we updated the draft map to produce the final map

#### Stakeholder involvement

During the mapping review, we consulted with stakeholders at the Department of Health and Social Care and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as well as with a standing advisory group of patients and carers. This ensured that the review of winter pressures was informed by the views and experiences of stakeholders. The aim of this consultation was to: 

*   illuminate the practical and personal challenges experienced by those planning or using health services during times of exceptional demand.

*   inform the second phase of our search strategies by identifying specific strategies, initiatives and interventions that target discharge planning and integrated care in the context of winter pressures

*   identify gaps in the literature with a view to compiling a future research agenda.

#### Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)

A PPI meeting with members of the Evidence Synthesis Centre standing public advisory group was conducted on 30 November 2022 to discuss the mapping review. The meeting aimed to ascertain the groups’ thoughts and experiences around discharge planning and integrated care interventions to minimise winter pressures. To help bring out their thoughts and opinion we developed five scenarios around interventions found in the literature and asked what that liked about each approach and what are the drawbacks or what might have been overlooked. The five interventions used in developing the scenarios were Discharge to Assess, Same Day Emergency Care, Hospital Avoidance Response Team, Care & Repair and Telecare. The scenarios are provided in Appendix 2.

The PPI group met on 30th November online and five members attended.

The groups’ thoughts and experiences are summarised and presented for each of the scenario interventions.

##### Discharge to Assess (D2A)

Good to free up bed space so not delaying planning operations because of shortage of beds. Concern about whether patients are properly assessed before discharge. Positive for patient to be out of hospital but there needs to be a care plan in place and they are time consuming and shouldn’t be rushed. Important to ensure that the patient will be safe in their own home or a care home.

##### Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC)

Concerned about discharge home with new medication who will follow-up, do GPs have time? If a patient is living alone who can chase for follow-up. Patients could need support in addition to a care. Care plans needed different if patient lives alone, has support. Ok if GP proactive response but usually need to keep asking due to pressure they are under. Potential side effects new medication. Concerns that the availability of services differ so much from area to area and we have to think about people living in rural areas

##### Hospital Avoidance Response Team

Rapid response good if reduces pressures on ambulances. Outcomes could depend upon paramedic training and expertise. Would paramedics be liaising with consultants from appropriate specialities? Would paramedics understanding medications and how can interact other medications. One group member discussed how paramedics specially trained in own area, very good, extra skills & knowledgeable. Issue of continuity of care after paramedic, carers need reliable ongoing support.

##### Care & repair

One group member discussed how a family member in Bristol had used the service 10 years ago for alterations after knee replacement. Not available everywhere particularly in rural areas. Repairs can take time, particularly given a shortage of workmen; typically work needs to be completed promptly. A real worry is cold homes and excess winter deaths. Energy bills and cost of living. Third sector – great if reliable but services in different areas are very variable.

##### Telecare

Monitors, wearables useful, good involve patients in reading good to use & assurances reduce usage of services. Good opportunity. Care home staff sending to A&E as not properly trained. Good idea but practicality staff not trained to use tech, staff need training in new equipment, depends care homes and staffing. Shortage care home staff. Staff training and turnover. Big role for telecare moving forward, unavoidable and important to embrace technology. Would assessment by diabetic nurse by zoom or skype be enough could need to be in person, can patient express herself thoroughly online, issue communication. Wearables/patient apps good maybe not for all conditions sometimes need F2F. Who would be monitoring in care home. Rising elderly population more demands tech but shouldn’t be fully dependent. Technology needs to be supported.

At the end the meeting the group voted on which intervention they thought it would be most useful to fund future research into, one group member chose not to vote. Three of the group voted for telecare believing that delivery of healthcare is moving in this direction and that it is important to have research to ensure it can be used effectively and to determine what works for different people and in which circumstances. The other group member voted for hospital avoidance response team emphasising their belief in the importance of paramedics in helping to mitigate winter pressures. Paramedics have been specially trained where they live and with the long waiting times for an ambulance to arrive or with patients at A&E waiting to be seen the role of paramedics is becoming more important.

## Results

The initial ‘winter pressures’ search identified 723 items, of which 117 were judged to be relevant and used for the draft map. Subsequent targeted searches identified a further 62 items related to the different taxonomy headings, together with references to guidance and web sites (see tables 2 to 83).

### Findings -Taxonomy

The final taxonomy is presented in Table 1. The taxonomy reflects the focus of the review on supporting early discharge where safe and appropriate but also includes interventions aimed at avoiding hospital admission through rapid response or delivering care in other settings. The ‘cross-cutting’ category groups interventions that could be delivered at different stages of the patient pathway and/or different applications of a particular technology (e.g. digital and data).

View this table:
[Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T1)

Table 1 Final taxonomy of candidate interventions

### Findings – Map

The final map is provided below and submitted as an accompanying PDF.

![Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/F1)

### Findings – Taxonomy Headings/Interventions

Findings are presented in the following tables following the order of the taxonomy presented in Table 1. Definitions and sample interventions are presented first, followed by a separate table of supporting evidence and identified research gaps under each taxonomy heading.

### Structural Interventions

Findings for taxonomy headings classified as structural are summarised in Tables 2 to 34. Tables 2 to 5 cover hospital avoidance; Tables 6 and 7 alternative delivery sites; Tables 8 to 17 cover facilitated discharge; and Tables 18 to 34 cover cross-cutting headings. Detailed information can be found in the tables, with brief overviews before and after each group.

#### Structural Interventions – Hospital Avoidance

The main taxonomy headings for hospital avoidance are same day services (Tables 2 and 3); extra service delivery (Tables 4 and 5). See also seven-day services (Tables 27 and 28) in the Structural Interventions – Cross-cutting section (page 61)).

##### S – Same Day Services

View this table:
[Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T2)

Table 2 Same Day Services: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T3)

Table 3 Same Day Services: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Extra Service Delivery

View this table:
[Table 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T4)

Table 4 Extra Service Delivery: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T5)

Table 5 Extra Service Delivery: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

Same day services fall into two broad categories: same day emergency care followed by discharge without hospital admission and routine surgery performed on a day case basis, with patients returning home on the day of surgery. Both have been widely adopted and are supported by relevant guidance. However a clear need remains for further research and evaluation (see Table 3).

Extra service delivery takes a variety of forms and some successes have been reported in both emergency and elective care (Table 5) but the evidence base remains limited.

#### Structural Interventions – Alternate delivery site

The heading ‘Alternative delivery site’ covers a variety of specialist units delivering services outside general hospitals or in demarcated areas within them. Examples are acute medical units and short stay units.

##### S – Specialist Units

View this table:
[Table 6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T6)

Table 6 Specialist Units: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T7)

Table 7 Specialist Units: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

In summary, acute medical units have a good evidence base overall, with some research specific to winter pressure conditions. Frail Elderly Short Stay Units have been supported by winter pressure funding but we found limited research on these and other types of specialist unit.

#### Structural Interventions – Facilitated discharge

Facilitated discharge is a key area for health and care services dealing with winter pressures. It includes interventions to optimise use of resources and minimise length of stay for patients in hospital, planning for discharge and discharge with support in place prior to a full assessment of health and care needs (discharge to assess).

##### S – Bed management

View this table:
[Table 8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T8)

Table 8 Bed Management: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T9)

Table 9 Bed Management: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Discharge co-ordinators

View this table:
[Table 10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T10)

Table 10 Discharge co-ordinators: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 11](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T11)

Table 11 Discharge co-ordinators: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Discharge to assess

View this table:
[Table 12](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T12)

Table 12 Discharge to assess: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 13](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T13)

Table 13 Discharge to assess: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Monitoring and Review

View this table:
[Table 14](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T14)

Table 14 Monitoring and Review: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 15](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T15)

Table 15 Monitoring and review: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Patient flow

View this table:
[Table 16](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T16)

Table 16 Patient flow: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 17](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T17)

Table 17 Patient flow: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

We found that some aspects of facilitated discharge are relatively well researched, particularly discharge to assess and similar interventions (e.g. home first). Interventions with little UK evidence were sometimes supported by systematic reviews, although the quality of these varied. Some taxonomy headings, e.g. ‘bed management’ and ‘discharge co-ordinators’, were often evaluated as part of a broader process of ‘discharge planning’.

#### Structural Interventions – Cross-cutting

This section of the taxonomy covers a diverse group of structural changes with broad applicability, including multidisciplinary and multi-agency teams, use of digital technology and data, monitoring and accountability in the healthcare system, national and local policies, staff redeployment and the role of volunteers.

##### S – Communication and teamwork

View this table:
[Table 18](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T18)

Table 18 Communication and Teamwork: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 19](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T19)

Table 19 Communication and teamwork: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Digital and data

View this table:
[Table 20](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T20)

Table 20 Digital and data: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 21](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T21)

Table 21 Digital and data: Interventions and supporting evidence

##### S – Governance

View this table:
[Table 22](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T22)

Table 22 Governance: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 23](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T23)

Table 23 Governance: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S - Managed Care Approaches

View this table:
[Table 24](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T24)

Table 24 Managed Care: Definitions and Rationales

##### S –Policies

View this table:
[Table 25](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T25)

Table 25 Policies: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 26](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T26)

Table 26 Policies: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S - Seven Day Services

View this table:
[Table 27](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T27)

Table 27 Seven day services: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 28](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T28)

Table 28 Seven day services: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S - Prioritisation and Triage

View this table:
[Table 29](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T29)

Table 29 Prioritisation and triage: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 30](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T30)

Table 30 Prioritisation and triage: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Staff redeployment

View this table:
[Table 31](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T31)

Table 31 Staff redeployment: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 32](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T32)

Table 32 Staff redeployment: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### S – Volunteers

View this table:
[Table 33](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T33)

Table 33 Volunteers: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 34](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T34)

Table 34 Volunteers: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

In summary, evidence support for initiatives in this group varied widely. The winter pressure search identified UK initiatives to support improved teamwork, together with associated guidance (Table 19). Various initiatives have applied data sharing and digital technology, but we found a relative lack of research studies. Actions at the organisational level, e.g. involving changes in governance or formulation and implementation of policy, play an important part in responding to winter pressures but we found this was not reflected in research. Further research studies are needed in the area of seven day services although promising case studies do exist. Staff redeployment has achieved successes within the pharmacy profession. Further research into staff redeployment would be useful. Volunteers have been used within the NHS in many different areas but there needs to be further evaluation of these initiatives in relation to winter pressures.

### Changing Staff Behaviour

Findings for taxonomy headings classified as changing staff behaviour are summarised in Tables 35 to 44. Detailed information can be found in the tables. The taxonomy headings were clinical audit, education of staff, protocols/guidelines, quality improvement programmes and quality management systems.

#### Changing Staff Behaviour – Cross-cutting

All of the headings were classified as cross-cutting.

##### CSB – Clinical Audit

View this table:
[Table 35](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T35)

Table 35 Clinical Audit: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 36](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T36)

Table 36 Clinical Audit: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CSB – Education of Staff

View this table:
[Table 37](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T37)

Table 37 Education of Staff: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 38](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T38)

Table 38 Education of Staff: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CSB – Protocols/Guidelines

View this table:
[Table 39](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T39)

Table 39 Protocols/Guidelines: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 40](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T40)

Table 40 Protocols/Guidelines: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CSB – Quality Improvement Programmes

View this table:
[Table 41](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T41)

Table 41 Quality Improvement Programmes: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 42](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T42)

Table 42 Quality Improvement Programmes: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CSB – Quality Management Systems

View this table:
[Table 43](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T43)

Table 43 Quality Management Systems: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 44](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T44)

Table 44 Quality Management Systems: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

Within this taxonomy section, we identified limited initiatives or research studies. Changing staff behaviour can take time and initiatives to minimise winter pressures may need to be implemented rapidly without the time for thorough evaluation or to measure all potential outcomes. Initiatives could potentially be too short to make changes to staff behaviour and they might not measure staff behaviour as an outcome. Further research studies could plan evaluations that consider a variety of outcomes including changes in staff behaviour, although it can be difficult to measure.

### Changing Community Provision

In the first version of the taxonomy, as employed during the initial winter pressures mapping process, all Changing Community Provision (CCP) entries were subsumed under a single overarching heading. Subsequently, as we sought evidence on the specific intervention types, the review team decided to differentiate community provision within three subcategories. We believe that this is the first, and important, step towards starting to think how different types of intervention attempt to respond to winter pressures in advance of a realist focus on mechanisms. The three subcategories are therefore labelled as CCP – Hospital Avoidance, CCP – Alternate Delivery Site, and CCP – Facilitated Discharge. Each is considered, together with specific interventions under each subcategory in the tables below.

#### Changing Community Provision - Hospital Avoidance

Findings for taxonomy headings classified as changing community provision are summarised in Tables 45 to 52. Detailed information can be found in the tables. The taxonomy headings were rapid response/see and treat, single point response and step up facilities.

View this table:
[Table 45](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T45)

Table 45 Hospital Avoidance: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 46](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T46)

Table 46 Hospital Avoidance: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Rapid Response/See and Treat

View this table:
[Table 47](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T47)

Table 47 Rapid Response/See and Treat: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 48](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T48)

Table 48 Rapid Response/See and Treat: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Single Point Response

View this table:
[Table 49](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T49)

Table 49 Single Point Response: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 50](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T50)

Table 50 Single Point of Response: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Step Up Facilities

View this table:
[Table 51](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T51)

Table 51 Step Up Facilities: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 52](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T52)

Table 52 Step Up Facilities: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

#### Changing Community Provision – Alternate Delivery Site

Findings are presented in detail in Tables 53 to 62 below and associated summary paragraphs.

##### CCP - Care Homes

View this table:
[Table 53](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T53)

Table 53 Care Homes: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 54](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T54)

Table 54 Care Homes: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Community Teams

View this table:
[Table 55](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T55)

Table 55 Community Teams: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 56](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T56)

Table 56 Community Teams: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Home Care

View this table:
[Table 57](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T57)

Table 57 Home Care: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 58](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T58)

Table 58 Home Care: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP – Hospital At Home

View this table:
[Table 59](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T59)

Table 59 Hospital At Home: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 60](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T60)

Table 60 Hospital At Home: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP – Telecare

View this table:
[Table 61](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T61)

Table 61 Telecare: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 62](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T62)

Table 62 Telecare: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

#### Changing Community Provision – Facilitated Discharge

Findings are presented in detail in Tables 63 to 81 below and associated summary paragraphs.

##### CCP - Rehabilitation, Recovery and Reablement

View this table:
[Table 63](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T63)

Table 63 Rehabilitation, Recovery and Reablement: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 64](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T64)

Table 64 Rehabilitation, Recovery and Reablement: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Step Down Beds

View this table:
[Table 65](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T65)

Table 65 Step Down Beds: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 66](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T66)

Table 66 Step Down Beds: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP – Virtual Hospitals/Virtual Wards

View this table:
[Table 67](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T67)

Table 67 Virtual Hospitals/Virtual Wards: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 68](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T68)

Table 68 Virtual Hospitals/Virtual Wards: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Other Agencies

View this table:
[Table 69](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T69)

Table 69 Other Agencies: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 70](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T70)

Table 70 Other Agencies: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Private Sector

View this table:
[Table 71](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T71)

Table 71 Private Sector: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 72](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T72)

Table 72 Private Sector: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Social Care

View this table:
[Table 73](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T73)

Table 73 Social Care: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 74](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T74)

Table 74 Social Care: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

##### CCP - Voluntary Services

View this table:
[Table 75](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T75)

Table 75 Voluntary Services: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 76](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T76)

Table 76 Voluntary Services: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

Within the Changing Community Provision taxonomy section, comprised of three subsections and numerous interventions, we identified variable numbers of initiatives or research studies. Some areas such as hospital at home are well explored. Other approaches such as virtual wards are already stimulating their own initiatives and research agenda, motivated in part by significant growth in these remote initiatives during the pandemic. Other sectors such as the voluntary agencies and private sector are less frequently reported and even less frequently researched. Initiatives reported in this section are reported and evaluated in the short-term with little consideration of longer-term sustainment or rigorous evaluation. The Community sector has always been a “poor relation” compared with the acute sector and has neither the resources nor infrastructure to tackle the complete research agenda required by such a whole system wicked problem. Further research studies could seek to undertake cross-cutting research along clinical pathways (e.g. primary care- acute care-social care) but this may require an integration of research strategies and research funding to mirror the integration of care taking place in the health sector itself.

### Integrated Care

findings for the Integrated Care (IC) are presented in detail in Tables 77 to 82 below and associated summary paragraphs. Probably even more than any other section of the taxonomy we found considerable overlap both between integrated care interventions and other interventions. As mentioned above a focus on “delivery site” elsewhere in the taxonomy has meant that the section on integrated care tends to focus on initiatives that are distinctively branded as “integrated”. Furthermore, this particular category within the taxonomy, a specific focus identified during the commissioning of the review, is distinctive in that it operates across multiple levels; from integration at an organisation level, through shared pathways of care to front-line integration of health, social care and voluntary services staff within individual teams. As a consequence, coverage of this category is notably heterogeneous. As a combined front for research activity it would particularly benefit from exploration of mechanisms to establish whether these operate at multiple levels as a feature of integration or whether they operate exclusively within a single level or strata of the organisation.

View this table:
[Table 77](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T77)

Table 77 Integrated Care: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 78](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T78)

Table 78 Integrated Care: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

#### IC- Winter Improvement Collaborative

View this table:
[Table 79](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T79)

Table 79 Winter Improvement Collaborative: Definitions and Rationales

#### IC - Integrated Care Discharge “Huddles”

View this table:
[Table 80](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T80)

Table 80 IC - Integrated Care Discharge “Huddles”: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 81](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T81)

Table 81 IC - Integrated Care Discharge “Huddles”: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

Within this taxonomy section, we identified numerous but varied approaches to integration and, as mentioned elsewhere a focus on interventions that are formally labelled as “integrated care” provides a potentially misleading picture of a landscape where integration is present to so many different degrees and at different levels. Indeed the sheer heterogeneity of initiatives makes it challenging to take stock of current activity.

Integrated care organisations constitute one of the development areas for both health and care services and for research and it seems that this research agenda will little supplementary stimulation. However a particular focus on the contribution to hospital avoidance and prevention of delayed discharge would potentially harness the benefits of being able to track pathways throughout integrated care organisations rather than stop at the artificial borders between sectors as may previously have been the case for more siloed research. Further research studies could therefore potentially capitalise on the new models of care to develop a more contemporary and forward-looking research agenda.

### Targeting carers (includes TC - Carer Education; TC - Carer Preparation; TC - Carer Respite and TC - Carer Support)

Findings from the Targeting Carers (TC) initiatives are presented in detail in Tables 82 to 83 below and associated summary paragraphs. Four overall approaches were classified as Targeting Carers; Carer Education; Carer Preparation; Carer Respite and Carer Support. As with other sections of the taxonomy we found considerable overlap both within carer interventions and between other interventions and carer provision.

View this table:
[Table 82](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T82)

Table 82 Targeting carers: Definitions and Rationales

View this table:
[Table 83](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T83)

Table 83 Targeting carers: Interventions and Supporting Evidence

The sheer breadth and scope of this taxonomy section made a comprehensive survey of research prohibitive. The heading is included in the taxonomy for completeness, as mentioned in the discussion targeting carers sustains its own research agenda. Nevertheless we have identified the four key areas required within targeting carers and have identified limited initiatives or research studies. The role of carers has not only been identified as pivotal but it also represents a hidden cost alongside formal systems of care, often compensating for pressures within the overall health system. However, reliance on carers exerts its own impact on the carers themselves. “Winter pressures and the implications on carers” would seem to constitute a promising area for further exploration. It remains to be seen whether benefits of, for example, carer respite during less-pressured times can produce a dividend during subsequent pressure points in terms of carer resilience and community support. Because of its often invisible nature carer contribution can prove very challenging to measure.

## Discussion

### Overview of Discussion

The Discussion starts with an overall summary of common findings over all intervention types. It then proceeds to brief summaries of the five overarching types of interventions; (i) structural interventions, (ii) changing staff behaviour, (iii) changing community provision, (iv) integrated care and (v) targeting carers. Finally, the Discussion summarises the research priorities and the potential for a realist review.

### Overall summary

Undoubtedly the foremost limitation of this review is the absolute shortage of studies that describe and evaluate winter pressures in a specific way. As mentioned above there is no shortage of studies that describe achievements against a backdrop of winter pressures or that describe quality improvements with multiple collateral benefits including an impact against winter demands. However, as a review team we agreed that this is substantively different from interventions that specifically target winter pressures. Even following winter funding to identify specific targets for development could not guarantee that each intervention was conceived against the specific requirements particular to winter pressures as opposed to relieving capacity pressures more broadly. As a team we found ourselves asking should “winter” simply privilege the time when initiatives take place, conventionally “winter pressures” have been attributed to a specific time period or even a specific date!, or are we looking for something related to specific pressures on the system as characterised by the pressures observed at winter. This discussion is particularly relevant given recent acknowledgement that in recent years winter pressures seem to be taking place “all the year round”. This realisation had a considerable bearing on our decision, following the preliminary mapping specific to winter pressures, to expand to the evidence base on wider responses to health and social care system pressures.

Overall, the evidence base is characterised by large numbers of case studies, often published online or presented at conferences, and relatively few peer-reviewed journal articles. Case studies are often accompanied by guidance to support implementation of changes to services. This distribution of evidence probably reflects the urgent need to develop and implement solutions to the ever increasing winter (and increasingly year-round) pressures on the health and care system. The majority of evaluations report positive effects on important outcomes such as length of hospital stay but many are uncontrolled or based on small samples, meaning that they need to be interpreted with caution.

A further interpretation of the evidence base, fuelled by the expansion of winter pressures to other times of the year, acknowledges that “winter pressures”, although undoubtedly real, tend to assume extra narrative significance by presenting a continuous systemic challenge in binary form. Politically “winter pressures” may become a device used to spotlight specific attention on health system under-resourcing so that these issues assume special significance over and above general awareness as highlighted by politicians, the popular media and public campaigns.

### Summary – Structural Interventions

Structural responses to winter pressures were classified as ‘hospital avoidance’, ‘alternative delivery site’, ‘facilitated discharge’ and ‘cross-cutting’. In line with the review’s emphasis on timely hospital discharge and integrated care post-discharge, most taxonomy headings fell into the latter two categories. Nevertheless, it is clear that avoiding admission in the first place (where clinically appropriate and feasible) and exploring care delivery in different settings both play important roles in the overall response.

In the area of hospital avoidance, we identified many UK initiatives around same day emergency care, mostly reported as case studies or evaluations of low methodological quality, suggesting a research gap. Surgical hubs are a more recent development and we have identified research and implementation gaps in this area. Extra service delivery takes a variety of forms and some successes have been reported in both emergency and elective care but the evidence base remains limited.

In terms of alternative delivery sites, acute medical units were defined by the Royal College of Physicians, London as long ago as 2007. Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated their effectiveness. Other initiatives have involved developing specialist units using winter funding but these remain to be fully evaluated.

Some aspects of facilitated discharge are relatively well researched, particularly models based on ‘discharge to assess’ (D2A, also ‘Home First’ and others). In addition to case studies and guidance, we identified a range of Healthwatch reports, providing a patient/carer perspective on how D2A services operate in real-life clinical practice. Interventions with little UK evidence were sometimes supported by systematic reviews, although the quality of these varied. Some taxonomy headings, e.g. ‘bed management’ and ‘discharge co-ordinators’, were often evaluated as part of a broader process of ‘discharge planning’. ‘Patient flow’ is another broad heading with some overlap with both ‘bed management’ and discharge planning. The concept of ‘patient flow’ is also broader than facilitated discharge, although its ultimate goal is ensuring safe discharge as soon as is clinically appropriate. This highlights an issue we found with the taxonomy of the overlap within the taxonomy headings.

Evidence support for initiatives defined as ‘cross-cutting’ varied widely. The winter pressure search identified UK initiatives to support improved teamwork, together with associated guidance (Table 19). Various initiatives have applied data sharing and digital technology, but we found a relative lack of research studies. Actions at the organisational level, e.g. involving changes in governance or formulation and implementation of policy, play an important part in responding to winter pressures but this was not reflected in research. Further research studies are needed in the area of seven day services although promising case studies exist. Staff redeployment has achieved successes within the pharmacy profession and research involving other staff groups would be useful. Volunteers have been used within the NHS in many different areas but there needs to be further evaluation of these initiatives in relation to winter pressures.

We identified significant numbers of recent systematic reviews relevant to, but not targeted at, responses to winter pressures. These are potentially valuable but the review questions rarely overlap completely with the needs of addressing winter pressures, suggesting that further targeted evidence synthesis (perhaps using realist approaches to focus on the UK context) could be valuable. The diverse range of literature identified by this mapping review suggest that such an approach would be feasible for at least some approaches, e.g. ‘discharge to assess’, reablement, virtual wards and optimising patient flow.

### Summary - Changing Staff Behaviour

Changing staff behaviour responses to winter pressures were all classified as ‘cross-cutting’.

There was recent guidance available for documenting local clinical audit from the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. A case study from SaTH used clinical audit to investigate compliance with the discharge process and found that in 2019 patients were still been kept waiting for the same reasons in the discharge lounge and few patients were transferred to the discharge lounge.

Within the Education of Staff heading there was one small research study about teaching staff about patient flow which found that multimodal teaching approaches were the most successful at the ward level to make it relevant to staff. Patient flow is one of the heading within structural interventions and the interventions introduced also could include education staff which again highlights the overlap within the taxonomy headings. Education staff could be part of larger initiatives with multiple components but might not be the outcome that is been measured, more likely that the number of patients discharged or patient length of stay would be main outcomes measured. The importance of looking after workforce and creating the best possible conditions for staff to do their best for patients was highlighted in a recent poster of a rapid review.

There was no evidence for the use of protocols/guidelines specifically to mitigate winter pressures. A systematic review from 2015 researching how to improve the quality of discharge summaries found that guidelines were useful for providing the key components of discharge summaries.

The lack of evidence for the use of quality improvement programmes to mitigate winter pressures could be due to the nature of winter pressures with a need for implementation of rapid solutions without the time for thorough evaluation. However, the NHS Confederation has drawn six lessons from the pandemic experiences of the Q community that would be useful to apply as winter pressures increase. Quality improvement programmes could be useful for introducing initiatives to mitigate winter pressures and would allow for more thorough planning and evaluation.

There was no evidence of the use of quality management systems to mitigate winter pressures. Within Scotland there is a move from the use of quality improvement to the use of quality management to support better quality health and social care indicating could become more important.

Changing staff behaviour can take time and initiatives to minimise winter pressures may need to be implemented rapidly without the time for thorough evaluation or to measure all potential outcomes. Initiatives could potentially be too short to make changes to staff behaviour and they might not measure staff behaviour as an outcome. Further research studies could plan evaluations that consider a variety of outcomes including changes in staff behaviour, although it can be difficult to measure.

### Summary – Changing Community Provision

Numerous approaches were classified as Changing Community Provision. Basically community responses either seek to keep those who need not be admitted to a hospital within the community, whether through preventive or early warning measures or through substituting community for acute services as the point of delivery, or they seek to facilitate and accelerate hospital discharge. In the latter case, two overall approaches can be observed; either by co-ordinating the patient’s needs to remove obstacles to discharge or, again, by offering services traditionally delivered within acute care from a community setting. ‘Hospital avoidance’ from the community has been artificially separated from “hospital avoidance” within the Structural category simply on the basis of the setting from which avoidance is enacted. We considered that attributing initiatives and evidence to the setting is more helpful than aggregating all hospital avoidance schemes together. So, for example, a scheme that seeks to avoid hospital admission by meeting patient needs as an outpatient within acute services is distinguished from a scheme that seeks to avoid placing any demand on acute services.

Findings are presented in detail in Tables 45 to 76 above and associated summary paragraphs. As with Structural interventions (above) we found considerable overlap between definitions and interventions. In some cases we found ourselves placing artificial demarcations between interventions e.g. in focusing telecare on “non-health” care needs and in distinguishing “virtual wards” where a single set of related functions (e.g. rehabilitation) take place from a “virtual hospital” which seeks to replicate the full range of functions offered by a physical hospital Equally common are packages that can be coded for multiple components.

As with the King’s Fund report Reimagining community services: Making the most of our assets (2018) we have found that many areas are trying to improve co-ordination through introducing single points of access or trusted assessor arrangements. The intention is to reduce duplication in referral and assessment processes. Sometimes these changes are associated with creation of new roles with a specific care colZIordination function (care navigators or care co-ordinators). The King’s Fund report highlights how these roles are intended to act as a “workaround” to help people navigate complex and uncolZIordinated services and highlights how “a better solution would be to make services less fragmented, so that this additional layer of complexity is not needed”.

Similarly, we identified commonality in interventions that seek to better co-ordinate care by bringing professionals together in integrated community teams. We discuss team-based approaches in the community under “community teams” while whole system approaches are explored under a separate Integrated Care section. These multidisciplinary community teams typically assemble diverse of community health and social care professionals working alongside groups of GPs. Teams often target older people or other groups with relatively high health and care needs (Naylor et al 2017). Teams are usually locality-based and include multiple professionals. These may include district nurses, community matrons, social workers, mental health professionals, therapists, GPs and voluntary sector workers. The core teams interact with a wide network of local services to meet the full range of people’s needs: “By working together in one team, staff across different disciplines can communicate regularly, share knowledge and expertise and co-ordinate care planning and delivery”. 109.

Some aspects of changing community provision are comparatively well-researched, particularly hospital at home services for a variety of health care needs where several systematic reviews exist. Other less-researched initiatives, particularly trusted assessors, step down facilities and single point of access for social care are well represented by UK initiatives. Indeed so many local constituencies are experimenting with such models that it is questionable whether it is meaningful to single specific initiatives for particular attention. Clearly, it could be valuable to explore variations across different models of the same initiative and to undertake robust evaluations.

Almost all of the initiatives are not specifically “winter pressures” approaches. However we have identified their use as winter pressure measures or as recipients for winter funding. This fact has been used to identify the candidacy of initiatives in this report for which we have subsequently sought more substantive and plentiful evidence. A key evaluation issue relates to whether to undertake evaluation specifically of initiatives within a winter pressures context or whether to evaluate them more widely on the understanding that they may be particularly beneficial when the health system is under particular strain as is exemplified by winter pressures.

As with Structural interventions, the evidence base is characterised by large numbers of case studies, often published online or presented at conferences, and relatively few peer-reviewed journal articles. The imperative to tackle urgent issues and to adopt initiatives that have proved promising elsewhere can be detected across the evidence base. We have identified a need for extensive and robust evaluation which could then be targeted for consolidated learning through reviews of case studies or even systematic reviews. Again there is methodological cause for concern in the likely presence of multiple biases such as early adopter bias, hero innovator bias and reporting bias. A further possibility relates to the fact that organisations that are encountering particularly severe problems may adopt multiple responses meaning that the strength of the effect is not replicated across more uniform sites or that positive impact may be achieved by a “kitchen sink effect” of multiple indistinguishable interventions that are introduced simultaneously.

As with the discharge to assess literature within Structural Interventions, the hospital at home literature is associated with significant numbers of recent systematic reviews. Their value is again dissipated by the lack of a specific focus on addressing winter pressures, suggesting that further targeted evidence synthesis (perhaps using realist approaches to focus on the UK context) could be valuable. Certainly the plethora of different initiatives with diverse labels suggests that a focus on common mechanisms would prove more useful than a diffuse investigation based on interventions.

### Summary - Integrated Care

Approaches to Integrated Care operate at multiple organisational levels. Evidence from Scotland allows exploration of vertical integration between health and social care services and its impact on delayed discharges. Early experience from the Vanguards also allows comparison of system-wide integration. Less transformative experiences of integration are seen when health and social care agencies seek to deliver approaches to discharge planning in a joint approach that works across the respective organisational boundaries. Finally, front-line instances of integrated care can be achieved when health and social care agencies are represented in joint operations. This final approach is exemplified by, for example, social care and voluntary agencies being represented at a local level in discharge huddles. Other approaches involve placing staff within a different organisational environment; for example by placing social workers within a hospital or by providing community access to acute hospital expertise. These types of initiative have tended to be discussed under the delivery site for the initiative, whether an acute hospital (covered under structural) or community provision.

Integrated care poses challenges in both achieving and measuring an impact. The complexity of interventions that work across organisational boundaries means that it can take some time to organise new pathways of lasting permanence. Alternatively, short term initiatives may be able to achieve short wins but this impact is either not sustained or, more typically, is not reported over longer time periods making evaluation problematic. Generally, evaluation of organisational approaches to improved discharge planning is neither as wide-ranging nor as sustained as it needs to be to provide reliable evidence. Measurement of long-term outcomes is therefore required.

Positive reporting bias is particularly likely to occur within new initiatives for integrated care. Where multiple measures are reported accounts focus on those indicators that have achieved a positive outcome. Where initiatives are able to report less demonstrable achievements they may focus on qualitative aspects of the integration, in terms of both structure and outcome. In particular, reports of integrated care initiatives focus little attention on the hidden costs in terms of staff time in setting up initiatives and in managing organisational change.

Notwithstanding such caveats the pursuit of integrated care is supported by several studies that have demonstrated positive results and by a wealth of anecdotal experience of the breakdown of health and social care communications between separate agencies. Simplifying communications and procedures carries an implicit driver towards improvement, whether or not achieved short term or sustained over a longer time period.

The specific challenge in relation to integrated care once more lies in the difficulty in attributing the impact of integrated care interventions and initiatives specifically to benefits to acute care utilisation during times of winter pressure. By implication care has to be integrated as a permanent feature across all seasons and patterns of demand. Commentators have observed that the health and social care systems now face “winter pressures” all the year around making integrated care interventions more apposite as a response to endemic health service challenges. The other implication relates to the scale of change often required for change to take place; particularly involving multiple stakeholders and organisations. While any attempts at improving information flow and communication and operation of shared processes are to be welcomed the capacity of organisations to be able to invest time and effort in organisational change at a time of systemic overload has to be questioned. A form of “natural selection” may therefore take place whereby the more easily achieved small-scale adaptation of existing systems may be privileged over more radical system-wide transformation.

A more detailed analytical review could analyse initiatives against a tightly defined and recognised classification of integration. More significantly a realist synthesis could focus on shared mechanisms by which different levels of integration achieve improvements in outcomes relating to admission avoidance or reduction in delayed discharge.

### Summary – Targeting Carers

Approaches to Targeting Carers tend to fall within two main types of response; reducing either demand per se or inappropriate demand by improving carer navigation across the community/acute margins or increasing carer resource and resilience by equipping them to handle demands that might otherwise draw upon hospital-based resources. One of the challenges of the latter approach lies in the fact that carers themselves have their own health and care needs. Placing extra demands on those who are already finding it challenging to cope may represent a short-term solution that reaps later negative dividends e.g. in the carer requiring extra support at another time. At best this may simply spread demands upon the health and social care system more evenly across the year – for example when the carer requires respite services at other times of the year. Whether such a “transferred need” presents acutely or is managed and planned exerts a considerable difference in the success of such measures. Of more concern is when placing an extra burden on a carer results in an immediate breakdown of informal support, meaning that both patient and their carer make demands on the system at a time of winter crisis and perhaps for an extended period in contrast to an otherwise brief episode.

Carer Education and Carer Preparation are generally targeted at the carer in advance of any challenging situation. Education may involve knowledge of what to do when faced with a particular crisis, thereby increasing carer resilience and reducing demand upon acute services or it may involve increasing carer capacity to navigate the care system appropriately, leading to better targeting of need. Preparation may involve practical skills or competencies that reduce demand on formal carers for example in being able to change dressings, administer medication etcetera. In both cases education and preparation typically take place at a time of “normal” demand on the health and care system and needs can be planned and anticipated.

Carer respite may occur in response to an acute need or crisis or may form part of a planned or managed response. Respite can take place on a very short term basis e.g. allowing carers an hour or two away from the demands of their informal care or it can take place over an extended period, as with accommodating an annual one-week or two-week holiday. Again, the assumption behind such interventions is that a planned and managed period of time will not only place less demand on the system than an acute crisis but that its overall duration will typically be shorter than otherwise accumulated. Carer support may either be episodic or ongoing. Carers may offer mutual and reciprocal support developing their own resources to relieve demands on formal care or carer support may be provided by health professionals, with the assumption that these may have more capacity, for example if located within the community, than is available within the acute care system.

The challenge in relation to targeting carers lies in the difficulty in attributing the impact of interventions specifically to benefits to acute care during times of winter pressure. The value of informal care in general to the health and social care system is well recognised and has been quantified. However, this contribution is typically conceived as relating to the whole year around not specifically to times of system pressure. Carer interventions can be attributed to winter pressures where specific winter pressure funding is targeted at carers as beneficiaries. The challenge for evaluation may lie in the reverse direction with benefits from specific-winter pressure interventions for carers delivering benefits that persist beyond the critical winter pressure period. The artificial separation of budgets, both across purposes and across organisations makes attribution of benefit to carer interventions particularly challenging.

Targeting Carers has its own separate research agenda aside from winter pressure responses. Almost all of the initiatives are not specifically “winter pressures” approaches. However, we have identified their use as winter pressure measures or as recipients for winter funding. This fact has been used to identify the candidacy of initiatives in this report for which we have subsequently sought more substantive and plentiful evidence. As for other initiatives, a key evaluation issue relates to whether to undertake evaluation specifically of carer initiatives within a winter pressures context or whether to evaluate them more widely on the understanding that they may be particularly beneficial when the health system is under particular strain as exemplified by winter pressures.

### Research Priorities

#### An overarching research agenda

As suspected from the outset we identified few initiatives specifically identified as a response to winter pressures. Conversely many initiatives tackling admission avoidance or reduction of length of stay and delayed discharge attributed the response to numerous factors which included “winter pressures” alongside multiple contextual factors including an increasingly ageing population and increased demands on health services. The lack of specificity of these responses suggests that an exploration of underpinning mechanisms and how these might contribute to tackling winter pressures, and indeed, other peaks of demand, as with a realist synthesis may be particularly useful. Methodologically, one of the most effective ways of identifying interventions or initiatives in response to winter pressures was in “following the money” i.e. looking at reports of how health organisations allocated funds directly attributed as “winter funding”. We then worked from a list of cursorily identified initiatives and interventions to match to the underpinning evidence base of systematic reviews and major studies. Even here, though, it was challenging to separate interventions targeted at winter pressures from more opportunistic approaches to allocating extra monies. We also observed that evidence coverage was very uneven and variable with some heavily used interventions being well frequently supported (e.g. hospital at home) and yet other, equally utilised responses being based on hardly any evidence.

Taken as a whole the evidence base, as briefly reviewed under different intervention types in relation to discharge planning and integrated care more generally, confirms the research priorities identified in a recent scoping review. Across the range of interventions and initiatives we found a dearth of studies that explored patient, family and provider needs and experiences particularly during the development and implementation of initiatives aimed at improving delayed discharges. This lack has similarly been highlighted in a review of patient and caregiver experience of delayed discharge. These perspectives are typically gathered in relation to experiencing the issues rather than gauging the response to specific interventions. The exploration of discharge to assess is a notable exception to this. As a consequence of this omission the patient and carer perspective is often excluded from the development and documentation of best practice.

We also observed a shortage of studies that measured impact of initiatives and interventions over a long-term. The evidence base performs more strongly in terms of promising “candidate” interventions than it does in terms of tried and tested approaches. As a consequence short-term results may appear promising, while the drivers are apparent and the staff committed to change. However, little evidence is available on longer term sustainability. Not only is the evaluation period short but the evaluation frame is narrow with a focus on more readily observable targeted change rather than on the wider impact across other sectors such as primary and community care. In this connection, our evidence synthesis extends the exclusive hospital focus of the scoping review3 to include primary and community care, voluntary agencies, social care and, specifically, integrated care. However, in relation to integrated care, as mentioned previously, our review had to effect an artificial separation between initiatives that harnessed some degree of integration at any of a number of levels (grouped by setting) and those explicitly badged under “integrated care”. The value of the research priorities identified for each intervention derives more from the collective picture rather than any one set of recommendations.

The evidence base sees increasing recognition that hospital avoidance and reduction in delayed discharge is a “wicked” whole system problem and therefore any lens of evaluation benefits from being targeted at interventions that are implemented and integrated across sectors. However our evidence summaries extend beyond the relatively well-trodden sectors of hospital, primary care and home and community care) to include other parties including voluntary agencies, the private sector and agencies such as housing and the fire brigade. Such an approach is essential if one is to “get at the root of the problem and ensure the implementation of an initiative in one setting does not simply shift the problem to another”.

Similarly our evidence summaries seeks to address the suggestion to include “initiatives that are more upstream in nature (eg, hospital admission avoidance, emergency department diversion and delivery models that proactively address the health and social care needs of individuals in community settings)”.

#### Stratified evidence priorities

Specific research gaps are identified under each intervention category in the taxonomy. For convenience these are listed in categories below.

Main priorities are documented in Table 84.

View this table:
[Table 84](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T84)

Table 84 High Priorities (Implementation and Research Gap)

Other priorities are documented in Tables 85 and 86.

View this table:
[Table 85](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T85)

Table 85 Moderate Priorities (Research Gap)

View this table:
[Table 86](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/06/2023.02.22.23286290/T86)

Table 86 Moderate Priorities (Synthesis Gap)

Lowest priorities include CCP - Hospital Avoidance; CCP- Social Care; IC – Integrated Care and S – Specialist Units - Acute medical units where the research priority for all four is: Low - Good quality Systematic Review(s) and plentiful UK research studies (No Gap). S – Policies is difficult to assign a level of priority as most policies will cover one or more headings from elsewhere in the taxonomy.

### Towards a realist review

The scoping review, published in 2021, concludes by identifying a potential need for “future research to consider a realist review of the literature on delayed hospital discharge to understand the context, mechanisms of impact, outcomes and theories of change, given that addressing a delayed discharge is a complex problem”. Our own exploration has confirmed both this need and its potential contribution. In providing brief summaries of how the individual interventions and initiatives might contribute to relieving winter pressures we have identified certain common underpinning mechanisms, such as reassurance of the older person, establishment of clinical need, provision of a second/specialist opinion, transfer of venue etcetera that could be operationalised well within a realist review.

We would add that rather than focus on a “single sector and reactive approach to addressing delayed discharge” our evidence summaries provide initial justification for including upstream anticipatory approaches viewed holistically across the widest possible array of sectors as they contribute within a whole system evaluation frame. However, it must be noted that, to remain both feasible and productive, the holistic lens required will necessitate a clear targeting and prioritisation of a focus for synthesis. The potential contribution of a realist approach is further attested to by identification of an existing realist synthesis in the specific area of intermediate care133.

### Strengths and Limitations

This review benefitted from ongoing stakeholder involvement throughout the project to ensure that the deliverable is closely targeted to the requirements of the commissioner. Winter pressures is a broad topic that runs the full gamut of public health and health service provision from upstream public health approaches through to delayed discharge and overwhelmed capacity of social care provision. Detailed consultation helped to focus on the specific issues that have been found to be of strategic importance, as blockages to the entire system, that relate to health services reconfiguration and that command ongoing press and public interest and concern. Therefore, a strength of this report is its specific focus on discharge arrangements and on integrated care.

However, it soon became apparent that health service and social care utilisation takes place within a complex whole system. Focusing attention only a model that assumes admission as an inpatient as a default fails to capitalise on developments such as same day services that seek to bypass any form of overnight stay. Furthermore, assuming presentation to an emergency department fails to take into account utilisation of other points of access, particularly those that aim at community based hospital avoidance. A strength of this review is its facility to extend beyond hospital-based interventions, a limitation openly acknowledged for previous scoping reviews. Indeed, inclusion of a significant body of community and voluntary service initiatives moves much closer to the concept of integrated care, although not necessarily badged as such. Broadening the coverage of the taxonomy, even given exclusion of any workforce or modelling interventions, necessarily holds consequences in the inevitable trade-off between breadth and depth. The review team was only able to focus on indicative items of evidence, namely systematic reviews and major UK studies. Between these items of evidence, privileged for rigour and relevance respectively, and the many identified case studies, privileged for currency and creativity, lies an extensive unacknowledged supply of studies exploring various aspects of admission avoidance, hospital discharge and integrated care provision. To this extent the picture afforded by the individual intervention summaries is more a guide to evidence availability rather than a comprehensive snapshot of research activity. We encourage any research team that follows up any individual intervention summary to invest significant time in developing a more comprehensive picture of that topic. Nevertheless, the purpose of this report is to indicate promising areas for further research activity and so does not require a comparably comprehensive approach to a review that identifies effective interventions.

This review was conducted by three experienced reviewers with a collective portfolio across multiple health services and delivery review topics. This expertise was particularly important in this context because of the premium that the methodology placed on rapid identification and summary of indicative items – a particular strength of all three individuals. The three reviewers possessed the skillset to evaluate and appraise individual reviews and studies as identified but the rapid timescale and broad coverage of the review meant that this could not be performed formally and comprehensively for all retrieved items and could only be carried out opportunistically as reading of specific individual studies took place. The short timescale also meant that the team had to identify a collective point at which to draw a line under identification of further initiatives and to move on to taking stock of items already found and documenting their characteristics. In addition, time spent on each intervention type could not be standardised and so variability in coverage and depth reflects both different levels of research activity and different degrees of ease of study identification.

Finally, we must acknowledge the limitations of the taxonomy. In seeking to characterise each intervention within at least one place within the taxonomy we have often simplified their characteristics. Interventions are frequently multi-component and therefore typically include multiple headings from the taxonomy. In a few cases, where interventions possessed multiple defining characteristics or where discrete evidence on the intervention was less plentiful we would duplicate entries across the taxonomy. However, our general intention was to try to make the intervention categories self-defining and discrete; a notable exception was the cross-boundary work on hospital avoidance which necessarily appears in both structural interventions and community provision – in the former instance having the principal interpretation of admission avoidance and in the latter having the broader interpretation of acute hospital avoidance (both emergency departments and inpatient admission). In pursuing the further application of the taxonomy we would encourage indexing interventions exhaustively across multiple taxonomy headings, potentially as a prequel to further work unpacking the mechanisms that underpin multiple intervention types attesting to the likely value of a planned realist approach.

### Conclusions

We conducted a mapping review of evidence specifically related to winter pressures. It was challenging to attribute initiatives as a specific response to the winter pressures agenda, given both the lack of specificity and the artificiality of winter pressures as a binary, time-defined construct. This conception becomes progressively less useful as system pressures become a perennial issue, not a seasonal one. Few initiatives identified were specifically implemented as a response to winter pressures.

In seeking an evidence base we extended a process of evidence summaries to general initiatives used to relieve pressures on admission and discharge. Hospital at home and discharge to assess were well-supported initiatives but other responses, while also heavily used, were based on limited evidence. Across all intervention groups we confirmed the lack of studies considering patient, family and provider needs when developing interventions aimed at improving delayed discharge; identified from previous reviews of discharge and of patient and care involvement. This is a particularly important omission given the heavy dependence of formal health care systems on the contribution of informal caregivers, whether when in hospital or in the community.

Additionally, few studies measure the impact of interventions over a long time, short-term results can appear promising but evidence for longer-term sustainability is notably absent. Hospital avoidance and delayed discharge requires a whole system approach. We conclude, alongside a previous scoping review that it is imperative to consider the whole system to ensure that implementing an initiative in one setting does not simply move the problem to another setting.

### Patient and Public Involvement

Stakeholder involvement was undertaken to ensure that the review was informed by the views and experiences of stakeholders at the Department of Health and Social Care and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as well as with a standing advisory group of patients and cares.

The consultation aimed to: 

*   highlight the practical and personal challenges experienced by those planning or using health services during times of exceptional demand.

*   to inform the second phase of our searches by identifying specific strategies, initiatives and interventions that target discharge planning and integrated care in the context of winter pressures

*   to identify gaps in the literature with a view to compiling a future research agenda.

In the review proposal, we aimed to consult with stakeholders from the Department of Health and Social Care and the National Institute for Health and Care Research and a standing advisory group of patient and carers.

The key stakeholders were involved in the proposal for review and commented on a draft map when they asked for findings to be included from research.

A standing advisory group of patients and carers met once during the project to discuss the groups knowledge about different interventions that could be used to mitigate winter pressures and the research team found it especially interesting to elicit group opinions on which interventions might require research funding. The rapid nature of the project meant that discussions with the standing advisory group had to be concentrated within a single meeting. For a long project would include the standing advisory group earlier enabling them to input into the scope of the review, discuss review findings, in particular through discussing the research gaps identified.

### Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

As a secondary data study our review did not include any research participants. We were however inclusive in the studies we selected.

### Disclaimer

This project was funded by the Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (project number NIHR 135773) and will be published in full in the NIHR Journals Library. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

### Contribution of authors

Anna Cantrell (Research Fellow): Lead Reviewer, protocol development, information retrieval, study selection, data extraction, report writing.

Duncan Chambers (Research Fellow): Study selection, data extraction, report writing.

Andrew Booth (Professor in Evidence Synthesis): Methodological adviser, lead protocol developer, study selection, data extraction, report writing, guarantor of the review.

All authors commented on drafts of the protocol and report.

## Data Availability

Any additional data not included in this report and its appendices are available on request. All queries should be submitted to the corresponding author.

## Acknowledgements

Ethical approval: This review did not involve the collection or analysis of any data that was not included in previously published research in the public domain. Therefore, it was exempt from formal ethical review by the University of Sheffield Ethics Committee.

Data sharing: Any additional data not included in this report and its appendices are available on request. All queries should be submitted to the corresponding author.

Information Governance: NIHR is committed to handling all personal information in line with the UK Data Protection Act (2018) and the General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) 2016/679. Under Data Protection legislation NIHR is the Data Processor; the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is the Data Controller, and we process personal data in accordance with their instructions. You can find out more about how we handle personal data, including how to exercise your individual rights and the contact details for DHSC’s Data Protection Officer *here*.

## Appendices

## Appendix 1: Medline Search Strategy

Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions <1946 to October 11, 2022>

Search Strategy:

\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|--

1.  (“winter plan” or “winter planning”).tw. (7)

2.  “winter pressure*”.tw. (90)

3.  “winter pressures”.kw. (4)

4.  “winter resilience”.tw. (1)

5.  “winter surge*”.tw. (27)

6.  “winter demand*”.tw. (4)

7.  or/1-6 (130)

8.  limit 7 to yr=”2018 2022” (54)

9.  limit 8 to english language (54)

NB. To optimize sensitivity our experienced methodologist advised that judgements on discharge planning/integrated care context be operationalised during title/abstract and full-text screening stages rather than rely on uneven application of database indexing. Therefore we do not use specific discharge/integrated care terminology in the search strategy.

## Appendix 2: PPI Scenarios

### 1. Discharge to Assess (D2A)

Susie has recently suffered a fall and was admitted to her local general hospital for a couple of days. Her hospital has identified funding to support people to leave hospital as quickly as possible, when safe and appropriate to do so. Susie’s ongoing care and assessment will now take place out of hospital. Instead of getting a “snapshot” of her long-term needs while Susie is in hospital she will be assessed over the next six weeks while she is back in her own home.

### 2. Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC)

Asif’s GP is concerned about his dizzy spells, sometimes leading to falls. He arranges for Asif to be transported to a Same Day Emergency Care Unit located in his local hospital. Asif is assessed within a short time of his arrival at the Unit and undergoes a series of tests. At the end of the same day Asif returns to his own home with some new medication. He will be contacted for follow up if required.

Also see video at: [https://youtu.be/rokhVD\_1XSE](https://youtu.be/rokhVD_1XSE)

### 3. Hospital Avoidance Response Team

Dave phones 999 after a serious attack of acute bronchitis. He is put in contact with a specialist hub for severe breathing difficulties. Instead of an ambulance being sent to him he receives a visit from a paramedic. The paramedic listens to what Dave has to say about his condition. After brief contact with the specialist hub the paramedic arranges for a change in medication and a follow up visit.

### 4. Care & Repair

Rosie wants to leave hospital as soon as possible. However, her health and social care workers are concerned that her home is currently neither warm enough nor safe enough for her to return home. They contact a local charity called Care & Repair which arranges for volunteers to visit her house and prepare the house for Rosie’s return.

### 5. Telecare

Jawinta has been discharged from hospital to her care home. Her ongoing heart condition will be monitored by the hospital from a portable transmitter beside her bed. She will also have a consultation over Skype or Zoom with a diabetic nurse who will contact her online every three to four weeks.

## Footnotes

*   Conflict of interest: Andrew Booth is a member of the NIHR HS&DR Funding Committee and the NIHR Systematic Reviews Advisory Group, and Convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group.

*   Funding and registration: NIHR Health Services & Delivery Research Programme (project number NIHR 135773).

*   The funding details and disclaimer to ensure that the correct and up-to-date NIHR funding details and disclaimers are present on the Preprint

*   1 For the purposes of this review “integrated care” involves partnerships of organisations that come together to plan and deliver joined up health and care services (NHS England).

## Abbreviations

AA
:   Admission Avoidance
A&E
:   Accident and Emergency
ACU
:   Ambulatory Care Unit
AECU
:   Ambulatory Emergency Care Unit
BRI
:   Bristol Royal Infirmary
CCP
:   Changing Community Provision
C & RC
:   Care & Repair Cymru
CSB
:   Changing Staff Behaviour
CTT
:   Community Treatment team
D2A
:   Discharge to Assess
DHSC
:   Department for Health and Social Care
ED
:   Emergency Department
EPOC
:   Effective Practice and Organisation of Care
EPR
:   Electronic Patient Record
ESD
:   Early-supported discharge
FRS
:   Falls Response Service
GP
:   General Practitioner
H2HH
:   Hospital to a Healthier Home
HART
:   Hospital Avoidance Response Team
HMIC
:   Health Management Information Consortium
HIU
:   High Impact User
IC
:   Integrated Care
ICU
:   Intensive Care Unit
NICE
:   National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
PDSA
:   Plan-Do-Study-Act
PECOS
:   Population-Exposure-Comparative-Outcome(s)-Study Types
PPI
:   Patient and Public Involvement
SaTH
:   Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital
SDEC
:   Same Day Emergency care
S
:   Structural
SSCI
:   Social Sciences Citation Index
UK
:   United Kingdom
TC
:   Targeting Carers

*   Received February 22, 2023.
*   Revision received December 6, 2023.
*   Accepted December 6, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  1.Fisher E, Dorning H. Winter pressures: what’s going on behind the scenes. The Nuffield Trust 2016.
    
    

2.  2.Iacobucci G. Covid-19: Lack of testing led to patients being discharged to care homes with virus, say auditors. In: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2020.
    
    

3.  3.Cadel L, Guilcher SJ, Kokorelias KM, Sutherland J, Glasby J, Kiran T, et al. Initiatives for improving delayed discharge from a hospital setting: a scoping review. BMJ open 2021;11:e044291.
    
    

4.  4.James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental evidence 2016;5:1–13.
    
    

5.  5.Yap G, Melder A. Hospital winter strategies: A rapid literature review Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health; 2015.
    
    

6.  6.Atkin C, Riley B, Sapey E. How do we identify acute medical admissions that are suitable for same day emergency care?: [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov); 2022.
    
    

7.  7.Commission CQ. Collaboration in urgent and emergency care; 2022.
    
    

8.  8.Jones E. Winter is Coming. HealthTech is Here. In: New York: Demos; 2018.
    
    

9.  9.Confederation N. A system approach to the demand crunch. In; 2021.
    
    

10. 10.NHS Providers. The real story of winter 2018/19. 2019.
    
    

11. 11.England N. Health Building Note 15-02: Facilities for same day emergency care/ambulatory emergency care; 2021.
    
    

12. 12.England N. Standard guidance: Ambulance clinician (on scene) referral to same day emergency care. ; 2021.
    
    

13. 13.Medicine RCoE. The RCEM Ambulatory Emergency Care Toolkit: delivering same day emergency care from the ED; 2019.
    
    

14. 14.Edinburgh RCoPo. Standards for Ambulatory Emergency Care: Report of a working group for Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and Society for Acute Medicine; 2019.
    
    

15. 15.England N. Ambulatory emergency care guide. Same day emergency care: clinical definition, patient selection and metrics. NHS Improvement and the Ambulatory Emergency Care Network; 2018.
    
    

16. 16.Pincombe A, Schultz TJ, Hofmann D, Karnon J. Economic evaluation of a medical ambulatory care service using a single group interrupted time□series design. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2022.
    
    

17. 17.Ash A. Ambulatory care: to bed, or not to bed. Future Healthcare Journal 2019;6:54.
    
    

18. 18.Varrier S. Introducing a medical ambulatory care service. Future Healthcare Journal 2019;6:59.
    
    

19. 19.Ali A, Karmani J. 13 Audit of a newly developed ambulatory care service at diana princess of wales hospital grimsby UK. In: The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine; 2018.
    
    

20. 20.Network AEC. AEC Programme Case Studies. In; 2019.
    
    

21. 21.Care AE. Ambulatory Emergency Care: a compilation of “best practice” case studies. In.
    
    

22. 22.Quality NI. Nurse led triage, assessment and treatment of ambulatory patients referred from Emergency Department and GPs.. In.
    
    

23. 23.Eardley I. Tackling the backlog: [publishing.rcseng.ac.uk](http://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk); 2022. doi:10.1308/rcsbull.2022.92
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1308/rcsbull.2022.92&link_type=DOI) 

24. 24.Sciences TAoM. Covid-19: preparing for the future: looking ahead to winter 2021/22 and beyond; 2021.
    
    

25. 25.Time GIRF. Design and layout of elective surgical hubs: A guide for NHS systems and regions to support planning of effective surgical hubs. NHS, 2022. ; 2022.
    
    

26. 26.England RCoSo. The case for surgical hubs; 2022.
    
    

27. 27.Yennaram M, Ranachan H, Dyer R, Impact of Late Shift Rapid Response Team (RRT) Input on Length of Stay and Discharge Destination in Emergency Care. Medicine and *…* 2020.
    
    

28. 28.Cooper M. Acute medicine clinics: the pathway to earlier discharge? Clinical Medicine 2019.
    
    

29. 29.Physicians RCo. The RCP chief registrar scheme 2017/18 yearbook. In; 2018.
    
    

30. 30.Peddie G, Gordon C. Investigating Immediate and Intermediate Patient Outcomes Following Transfer From the Acute Medicine Unit at the Western General Hospital, Edinburgh: A *…*: [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov); 2018.
    
    

31. 31.van Galen LS, Lammers EM, Schoonmade LJ, Alam N, Kramer MH, Nanayakkara PW. Acute medical units: The way to go? A literature review. Eur J Intern Med 2017;39:24–31. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.001&link_type=DOI) 

32. 32.Reid LE, Dinesen LC, Jones MC, Morrison ZJ, Weir CJ, Lone NI. The effectiveness and variation of acute medical units: a systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2016;28:433–46.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/intqhc/mzw056&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27313174&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

33. 33.Excellence NIfHaC. Assessment through acute medical units. In Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK); 2018.
    
    

34. 34.Edinburgh Integration Joint Board. Evaluation of Winter Planning 2020/21; 2021.
    
    

35. 35.CCG SaF. Governing body March 2015 part b. In; 2015.
    
    

36. 36.Michael A, Ijaola F. P406: Frail Elderly Short Stay Unit; A model of emergency care for older people. European Geriatric Medicine 2014:S209.
    
    

37. 37.Srikumar B, Perianayagam G, Narayan P, 1159 Ring-Fenced Arthroplasty Unit: The Need of The Hour During Winter and A Pandemic Crisis. British Journal of 2021.
    
    

38. 38.Care Quality Commission. Winter pressures for urgent and emergency care. 2021.
    
    

39. 39.Tampubolon L. Bed Management Strategy for Overcrowding at the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review. KnE Life Sciences 2018;4:50–9. doi:10.18502/kls.v4i9.3557
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18502/kls.v4i9.3557&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.Local Government Association. High impact change model: Managing transfers of care. London: Local Government Association; 2018.
    
    

41. 41.Williams S, Morrissey AM, Steed F, Leahy A, Shanahan E, Peters C, et al. Early supported discharge for older adults admitted to hospital with medical complaints: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:302. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-02967-y
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12877-022-02967-y&link_type=DOI) 

42. 42.Goncalves-Bradley DC, Lannin NA, Clemson L, Cameron ID, Shepperd S. Discharge planning from hospital. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;2:CD000313. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000313.pub6
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD000313.pub6&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43.Dimla B, Parkinson L, Wood D, Powell Z. Hospital discharge planning: A systematic literature review on the support measures that social workers undertake to facilitate older patients’ transition from hospital admission back to the community. Australas J Ageing 2022; doi:10.1111/ajag.13138. 10.1111/ajag.13138
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ajag.13138&link_type=DOI) 

44. 44.Doshmangir L, Khabiri R, Jabbari H, Arab-Zozani M, Kakemam E, Gordeev VS. Strategies for utilisation management of hospital services: a systematic review of interventions. Globalization and Health 2022;18:1–39.
    
    

45. 45.Glasper A. Ensuring smooth transition of frail elderly patients from hospital to community. British Journal of Nursing 2019;28:1338–9. doi:10.12968/bjon.2019.28.20.1338
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12968/bjon.2019.28.20.1338&link_type=DOI) 

46. 46.Jeffery S, MacInnes J, Bertini L, Walker S. Does a discharge to assess programme introduced in England meet the quadruple aim of service improvement? Journal of Integrated Care 2022; doi:10.1108/JICA-02-2022-0018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICA-02-2022-0018
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1108/JICA-02-2022-0018&link_type=DOI) 

47. 47.Gadsby EW, Wistow G, Billings J. A critical systems evaluation of the introduction of a ‘discharge to assess’ service in Kent.. Critical Social Policy 2022;42:671–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02610183211065028
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/02610183211065028&link_type=DOI) 

48. 48.Offord N, Harriman P, Downes T. Discharge to assess: transforming the discharge process of frail older patients. Future Hosp J 2017;4:30–2. doi:10.7861/futurehosp.4-1-30
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImZ1dHVyZWhvc3AiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NjoiNC8xLzMwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMTIvMDYvMjAyMy4wMi4yMi4yMzI4NjI5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

49. 49.Edwards P, Anwer S. The affect of a pilot Discharge to Assess process on unscheduled care performance. International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC*)* 2019;19.
    
    

50. 50.Lawlor L, O’Reilly C, Platts A, Myler L. 32 Exploring the Efficacy of a Discharge to Assess Model using a Combined Approach Involving FITT, OPAT and CIT. Age & Ageing 2019;48.
    
    

51. 51.Conneely M, Leahy S, Dore L, Trepel D, Robinson K, Jordan F, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following Emergency Department discharge: umbrella review. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:462. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03007-5
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12877-022-03007-5&link_type=DOI) 

52. 52.Platzer E, Singler K, Dovjak P, Wirnsberger G, Perl A, Lindner S, et al. Evidence of Inter-Professional and Multi-Professional Interventions for Geriatric Patients: A Systematic Review. Int J Integr Care 2020;20:6. doi:10.5334/ijic.4683
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5334/ijic.4683&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

53. 53.Goodison W, Lakra C, Okin R, Improving stroke patient flow during the COVID-19 pandemic using daily multidisciplinary neuronavigation: A novel north central london winter pressures project. European Stroke 2021.
    
    

54. 54.Coffey A, Leahy-Warren P, Savage E, Hegarty J, Cornally N, Day MR, et al. Interventions to Promote Early Discharge and Avoid Inappropriate Hospital (Re)Admission: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16. doi:10.3390/ijerph16142457
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph16142457&link_type=DOI) 

55. 55.Ritchie L. NHS Scotland redesign of urgent care-second national staging report: April–September 2021: aura.abdn.ac.uk; 2021.
    
    

56. 56.Sethi S, Boulind C, Reeve J, Carney A, Effect of hospital interventions to improve patient flow on emergency department clinical quality indicators. Emergency Medicine 2020.
    
    

57. 57.Ahlin P, Almstrom P, Wanstrom C. When patients get stuck: A systematic literature review on throughput barriers in hospital-wide patient processes. Health Policy 2022;126:87–98. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.12.002
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.12.002&link_type=DOI) 

58. 58.Devine J. A system approach to the demand crunch. 2021.
    
    

59. 59.NHS Confederation. System under strain: why demand pressures are more than a winter phenomenon 2018.
    
    

60. 60.Wilkinson E. NHS looks to pharmacy as it faces a tough winter 2018.
    
    

61. 61.Kattel S, Manning DM, Erwin PJ, Wood H, Kashiwagi DT, Murad MH. Information Transfer at Hospital Discharge: A Systematic Review. J Patient Saf 2020;16:e25–e33. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000248
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PTS.0000000000000248&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26741789&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

62. 62.Mehta N, Pandit A. Concurrence of big data analytics and healthcare: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2018;114:57–65. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.03.013
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.03.013&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

63. 63.Zonneveld N, Driessen N, Stussgen RAJ, Minkman MMN. Values of Integrated Care: A Systematic Review. Int J Integr Care 2018;18:9. doi:10.5334/ijic.4172
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5334/ijic.4172&link_type=DOI) 

64. 64.Association LG. High impact change model: managing transfers of care: examples of emerging and developing practice; 2018.
    
    

65. 65.England NIQN. NHS services–open seven days a week: every day counts. London; 2013.
    
    

66. 66.England N. Seven Day Hospital Services: The Clinical Case. In; 2013.
    
    

67. 67.England N. Seven Day Hospital Services Resources. In.
    
    

68. 68.Khan M, Khawar H, Perkins R, Pardiwala A. The positive impact of GIRFT (getting it right first time) on arthroplasty services in times of COVID-19: Elsevier; 2022.
    
    

69. 69.Chan A, Green K, Kontra K, Chapman T, Wewerka C, Statham A. The Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust outpatient services transformation programme to improve quality and effectiveness of patient care. Future Healthc J 2022;9:255–61. http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.7861/fhj.2021-0150
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImZ1dHVyZWhvc3AiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiOS8zLzI1NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzEyLzA2LzIwMjMuMDIuMjIuMjMyODYyOTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

70. 70.Ferguson F. Physiotherapists in ED: a city wide service supporting board performance, government targets, professional growth and most importantly patient care. Physiotherapy 2020.
    
    

71. 71.Rickards E, Ascough L, Sibley S, Hampson O, The SWISS Nurse; respiratory nursing care without any borders. An admission avoidance winter pressure initiative: Eur Respiratory Soc; 2021.
    
    

72. 72.Scriven N. Capacity issues need to be tackled by looking at all of acute provision: magonlinelibrary.com; 2018. doi:10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.304
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.304&link_type=DOI) 

73. 73.Atey TM, Peterson GM, Salahudeen MS, Bereznicki LR, Wimmer BC. Impact of pharmacist interventions provided in the emergency department on quality use of medicines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emergency Medicine Journal 2022.
    
    

74. 74.Hohl CM, Wickham ME, Sobolev B, Perry JJ, Sivilotti ML, Garrison S, et al. The effect of early in-hospital medication review on health outcomes: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2015;80:51–61. doi:10.1111/bcp.12585
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/bcp.12585&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

75. 75.Vera San Juan N, Clark SE, Camilleri M, Jeans JP, Monkhouse A, Chisnall G, et al. Training and redeployment of healthcare workers to intensive care units (ICUs) during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2022;12:e050038. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050038
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTIvMS9lMDUwMDM4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMTIvMDYvMjAyMy4wMi4yMi4yMzI4NjI5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

76. 76.Nelson M, Armas A, Thombs R, Singh H, Fulton J, Cunningham HV, et al. Synthesising evidence regarding hospital to home transitions supported by volunteers of third sector organisations: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2021;11:e050479. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050479
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050479&link_type=DOI) 

77. 77.England N. Recruiting and managing volunteers in NHS providers, a practical guide. Redditch: NHS England 2017.
    
    

78. 78.Malby R, Boyle D, Crilly T. Can Volunteering Help Create Better Health and Care. An evidence review 2017.
    
    

79. 79.Ross S, Fenney D, Ward D, Buck D. The role of volunteers in the NHS. In: King’s Fund London; 2018.
    
    

80. 80.Partnership HQI. Documenting local clinical audit: A guide to reporting and recording. ; 2020.
    
    

81. 81.Hospital SaT. An audit of compliance with SaTH discharge policy from the patient perspective. In; 2014.
    
    

82. 82.Hospital SaT. A re-audit of compliance with SaTH discharge policy from the patient perspective. In; 2015.
    
    

83. 83.Hospital SaT. Third re-audit of compliance with SaTH discharge policy from the patient perspective In; 2019.
    
    

84. 84.Wall O, O’Sullivan E. Teaching acute hospital staff and students about patient flow. British Journal of Nursing 2021; doi:10.12968/bjon.2021.30.13.812. 10.12968/bjon.2021.30.13.812
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12968/bjon.2021.30.13.812&link_type=DOI) 

85. 85.Miller CJ, Hall R, McFeeters M, Evans A, Orrock E, Day M. 91 Systems leadership lessons from planning for winter pressures. Paper presented at: Poster2019/11. doi:10.1136/leader-2019-fmlm.91
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/leader-2019-fmlm.91&link_type=DOI) 

86. 86.Unnewehr M, Schaaf B, Marev R, Fitch J, Friederichs H. Optimizing the quality of hospital discharge summaries–a systematic review and practical tools. Postgraduate Medicine 2015;127:630–9.
    
    

87. 87.Confederation N. Six improvement lessons to apply as winter pressures bite; 2022.
    
    

88. 88.Jones B, Kwong E, Warburton W. Quality Improvement Made Simple: What Everyone Should Know about Healthcare Quality Improvement: Quick Guide: Health Foundation; 2021.
    
    

89. 89.Commission CQ. Driving Improvement: case studies from eight NHS trusts. In; 2017.
    
    

90. 90.Scotland HI. Moving from quality improvement to quality management: supporting better quality health and social care for everyone in Scotland; 2022.
    
    

91. 91.Coleman A, Croke S, Checkland K. Improving care in care homes: what can Primary Care Networks learn from the Vanguards? Journal of Integrated Care 2020;29:85–96. doi:10.1108/jica-06-2020-0037
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1108/jica-06-2020-0037&link_type=DOI) 

92. 92.Evans G. Factors influencing emergency hospital admissions from nursing and residential homes: positive results from a practice-based audit. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:1045–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01471.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01471.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20666882&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

93. 93.Kandiah J, Nazar H, Wright D. Formative service evaluation of transfer of care service for care home residents after hospital discharge. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2022;30:394–7. doi:10.1093/ijpp/riac045
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ijpp/riac045&link_type=DOI) 

94. 94.Wilkinson T, North M, Bourne SC. Reducing hospital admissions and improving the diagnosis of COPD in Southampton City: methods and results of a 12-month service improvement project. NPJ primary care respiratory medicine 2014;24:14035-. doi:10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.35
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.35&link_type=DOI) 

95. 95.O’Connell Francischetto E, Jones J, Davies S, Allen K, Combes G, Damery S. 682 IMPACT OF DISCHARGE INTERVENTIONS FOR OLDER PATIENTS LEAVING HOSPITAL: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF REVIEWS. Age and Ageing 2022;51. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac036.682
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ageing/afac036.682&link_type=DOI) 

96. 96.Leong MQ, Lim CW, Lai YF. Comparison of Hospital-at-Home models: a systematic review of reviews. BMJ open 2021;11:e043285-e. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043285
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMS9lMDQzMjg1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMTIvMDYvMjAyMy4wMi4yMi4yMzI4NjI5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

97. 97.Echevarria C, Brewin K, Horobin H, Bryant A, Corbett S, Steer J, et al. Early Supported Discharge/Hospital At Home For Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review and Meta-Analysis. COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2016;13:523–33. doi:10.3109/15412555.2015.1067885
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/15412555.2015.1067885&link_type=DOI) 

98. 98.Qaddoura A, Yazdan-Ashoori P, Kabali C, Thabane L, Haynes RB, Connolly SJ, et al. Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PloS one 2015;10:e0129282-e. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129282
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0129282&link_type=DOI) 

99. 99.Shepperd S, Butler C, Cradduck-Bamford A, Ellis G, Gray A, Hemsley A, et al. Is Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home an Alternative to Hospital Admission for Older Persons? : A Randomized Trial. Annals of internal medicine 2021;174:889–98. doi:10.7326/M20-5688
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M20-5688&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

100.100.Shepperd S, Cradduck-Bamford A, Butler C, Ellis G, Godfrey M, Gray A, et al. Hospital at Home admission avoidance with comprehensive geriatric assessment to maintain living at home for people aged 65 years and over: a RCT. Health and Social Care Delivery Research 2022;10:1–124. doi:10.3310/htaf1569
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3310/HEPB9808&link_type=DOI) 

101.101.Schiff R, Oyston M, Quinn M, Walters S, McEnhill P, Collins M. Hospital at Home: another piece of the armoury against COVID-19. Future healthcare journal 2022;9:90–5. doi:10.7861/fhj.2021-0137
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImZ1dHVyZWhvc3AiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NjoiOS8xLzkwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMTIvMDYvMjAyMy4wMi4yMi4yMzI4NjI5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

102.102.Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng Z-J, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJL, et al. Transitional Care Interventions to Prevent Readmissions for Persons With Heart Failure. Annals of Internal Medicine 2014;160:774. doi:10.7326/m14-0083
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M14-0083&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24862840&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

103.103.Pandor A, Thokala P, Gomersall T, Baalbaki H, Stevens JW, Wang J, et al. Home telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes after recent discharge in patients with heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2013;17:1.
    
    

104.104.Al Rajeh A, Steiner MC, Aldabayan Y, Aldhahir A, Pickett E, Quaderi S, et al. Use, utility and methods of telehealth for patients with COPD in England and Wales: a healthcare provider survey. BMJ open respiratory research 2019;6:e000345-e. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2018-000345
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qcmVzcCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiNi8xL2UwMDAzNDUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8xMi8wNi8yMDIzLjAyLjIyLjIzMjg2MjkwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

105.105.Cook EJ, Randhawa G, Sharp C, Ali N, Guppy A, Barton G, et al. Exploring the factors that influence the decision to adopt and engage with an integrated assistive telehealth and telecare service in Cambridgeshire, UK: a nested qualitative study of patient ‘users’ and ‘non-users’. BMC health services research 2016;16:137-. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1379-5
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-016-1379-5&link_type=DOI) 

106.106.MacInnes J. Care navigators decision□making in prescribing Telecare for older people. Health & Social Care in the Community 2020;28:2431–40. doi:10.1111/hsc.13066
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hsc.13066&link_type=DOI) 

107.107.Watson P, Bearpark T, Ling J. The impact of rapid response and telecare services on elderly and vulnerable residents. Health & Social Care in the Community 2020;29:897–904. doi:10.1111/hsc.13123
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hsc.13123&link_type=DOI) 

108.108.Hove R. Health education England advanced clinical practitioner credential to build the workforce, that empowers people to live well with their LTCs. Physiotherapy 2022;114:e181–e2. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2021.12.156
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.physio.2021.12.156&link_type=DOI) 

109.109.Charles A, Ham C, Baird B, Alderwick H, Bennett L. Reimagining community services. In: The King’s Fund.[Online][Accessed on 20th March 2019] https://www.kingsfund …; 2018.
    
    

110.110.van der Laag PJ, Arends SAM, Bosma MS, van den Hoogen A. Factors associated with successful rehabilitation in older adults: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Geriatric Nursing 2021;42:83–93. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2020.11.010
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.gerinurse.2020.11.010&link_type=DOI) 

111.111.Pettersson C, Iwarsson S. Evidence-based interventions involving occupational therapists are needed in re-ablement for older community-living people: A systematic review. British journal of occupational therapy 2017;80:273–85.
    
    

112.112.Tessier A, Beaulieu M-D, Mcginn CA, Latulippe R. Effectiveness of reablement: a systematic review. Healthcare policy 2016;11:49.
    
    

113.113.Boniface G, Mason M, Macintyre J, Synan C, Riley J. The effectiveness of local authority social services’ occupational therapy for older people in Great Britain: a critical literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2013;76:538–47. 114.
    
    

114.114.Dawson S, Kunonga P, Beyer F, Spiers G, Booker M, McDonald R, et al. Does health and social care provision for the community dwelling older population help to reduce unplanned secondary care, support timely discharge and improve patient well-being? A mixed method meta-review of systematic reviews. F1000Research 2020;9:857-. doi:10.12688/f1000research.25277.1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12688/f1000research.25277.1&link_type=DOI) 

115.115.Francis J, Fisher M, Rutter D. Reablement: a cost-effective route to better outcomes. In: Social Care Institute for Excellence London; 2011.
    
    

116.116.Beresford B, Mayhew E, Duarte A, Faria R, Weatherly H, Mann R, et al. Outcomes of reablement and their measurement: Findings from an evaluation of English reablement services. Health Soc Care Community 2019;27:1438–50. doi:10.1111/hsc.12814
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hsc.12814&link_type=DOI) 

117.117.O’Rourke G, Beresford B. Research priorities for homecare for older people: A UK multi□stakeholder consultation. Health & Social Care in the Community 2022;30. doi:10.1111/hsc.13991
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hsc.13991&link_type=DOI) 

118.118.Walters C, Youl M, Okin R, Christofi G, Warwick H, Nathan M, et al. The burden of under recognised social complexity in the hyperacute phase of the stroke pathway. experience on an acute step-down rehbilitation unit during winter pressures/COVID-19. European Stroke Journal 2021:331-.
    
    

119.119.Lowthian JA, McGinnes RA, Brand CA, Barker AL, Cameron PA. Discharging older patients from the emergency department effectively: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and Ageing 2015;44:761–70. doi:10.1093/ageing/afv102
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ageing/afv102&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26265674&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

120.120.Levin KA, Crighton E. Measuring the impact of step down intermediate care on delayed discharge: an interrupted time series analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2019;73:674–9.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI3My83LzY3NCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzEyLzA2LzIwMjMuMDIuMjIuMjMyODYyOTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

121.121.Tinelli M, Wittenberg R, Cornes M, Aldridge RW, Clark M, Byng R, et al. The economic case for hospital discharge services for people experiencing homelessness in England: An in□depth analysis with different service configurations providing specialist care. Health & Social Care in the Community 2022;30. doi:10.1111/hsc.14057
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hsc.14057&link_type=DOI) 

122.122.Wenzel L, Evans H. Clicks and mortar: technology and the NHS estate. 2019. In.
    
    

123.123.Vindrola-Padros C, Singh KE, Sidhu MS, Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Tomini SM, et al. Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients: a rapid systematic review. EClinicalMedicine 2021;37:100965-. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100965
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100965&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34179736&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

124.124.Farmanova E, Baker GR, Cohen D. Combining Integration of Care and a Population Health Approach: A Scoping Review of Redesign Strategies and Interventions, and their Impact. International journal of integrated care 2019;19:5-. doi:10.5334/ijic.4197
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5334/ijic.4197&link_type=DOI) 

125.125.Mahmood L, Morris S, Stanford-Beale R. Kent Fire & Rescue Service Evaluation of Safe & Well Visits 2019/20. 2020.
    
    

126.126.Bynner C, McBride M, Weakley S. The COVID-19 pandemic: the essential role of the voluntary sector in emergency response and resilience planning. Voluntary Sector Review 2022;13:167–75. doi:10.1332/204080521x16220328777643
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1332/204080521x16220328777643&link_type=DOI) 

127.127.England N, Improvement N. Pharmacy and medicines optimisation: a toolkit for winter 2018/19. 2018. Available at:/articles/pharmacy-and-medicines-optimisation-a-toolkit-for-winter-2018-19/(accessed October 2020).
    
    

128.128.Sadler E, Potterton V, Anderson R, Khadjesari Z, Sheehan K, Butt F, et al. Service user, carer and provider perspectives on integrated care for older people with frailty, and factors perceived to facilitate and hinder implementation: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. PloS one 2019;14:e0216488-e. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216488
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0216488&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

129.129.Baxter S, Johnson M, Chambers D, Sutton A, Goyder E, Booth A. The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence. BMC health services research 2018;18:1–13.
    
    

130.130.Martínez-González NA, Berchtold P, Ullman K, Busato A, Egger M. Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: a meta-review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2014;26:561–70.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/intqhc/mzu071&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25108537&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

131.131.Philp I, Mills KA, Thanvi B, Ghosh K, Long JF. Reducing hospital bed use by frail older people: results from a systematic review of the literature. International journal of integrated care 2013;13:e048-e. doi:10.5334/ijic.1148
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5334/ijic.1148&link_type=DOI) 

132.132.Stephenson MD, Lisy K, Stern CJ, Feyer A-M, Fisher L, Aromataris EC. The impact of integrated care for people with chronic conditions on hospital and emergency department utilization: a rapid review. JBI Evidence Implementation 2019;17:14–26.
    
    

133.133.Pearson M, Hunt H, Cooper C, Shepperd S, Pawson R, Anderson R. Providing effective and preferred care closer to home: a realist review of intermediate care. Health & social care in the community 2015;23:577–93.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hsc.12183&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25684035&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

134.134.Dedeu T. Developing integrated health and social care models in Scotland. Eurohealth 2016;22:11–5.
    
    

135.135.Morciano M, Checkland K, Billings J, Coleman A, Stokes J, Tallack C, et al. New integrated care models in England associated with small reduction in hospital admissions in longer-term: A difference-in-differences analysis. *Health policy (Amsterdam*, Netherlands*)* 2020;124:826–33. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.06.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.06.004&link_type=DOI) 

136.136.Alonso JM, Andrews R. Does vertical integration of health and social care organizations work? Evidence from Scotland. Social Science & Medicine 2022;307:115188.
    
    

137.137.Colclough R, Wagstaff R, Rees S, Breese K, Nicholls C, Porter S, et al. P129 Getting it right in a digital age – robust patient selection to an early supported discharge service. Paper presented at: Improving care pathways in adults and children2021/11. doi:10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.238
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.238&link_type=DOI) 

138.138.Collins B. P-210 Trusted assessor pilot – making sure that patients are where they need to be! Paper presented at: Poster presentations2018/11. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-hospiceabs.235
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-hospiceabs.235&link_type=DOI) 

139.139.Randles M, Hickey S, Cotter S, Walsh C, O’Connor K, O’Sullivan C, et al. 144 The Use of a Multidisciplinary Team Discharge “Huddle” to Improve Patient Flow and Planning. Age and Ageing 2019;48:iii1–iii16. doi:10.1093/ageing/afz102.30
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ageing/afz102.30&link_type=DOI) 

140.140.Wilson F. West Lothian Health and Social Care Partnership Integrated Daily Discharge Flow Huddle. International Journal of Integrated Care 2022;22:428. doi:10.5334/ijic.icic22220
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5334/ijic.icic22220&link_type=DOI) 

141.141.Franklin BJ, Gandhi TK, Bates DW, Huancahuari N, Morris CA, Pearson M, et al. Impact of multidisciplinary team huddles on patient safety: a systematic review and proposed taxonomy. BMJ Quality & Safety 2020;29:1.2-. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009911
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjI5LzEwLzEtYSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzEyLzA2LzIwMjMuMDIuMjIuMjMyODYyOTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

142.142.Collins J, Lizarondo L, Taylor S, Porritt K. Adult patient and carer experiences of planning for hospital discharge after a major trauma event: a qualitative systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation 2022; doi:10.1080/09638288.2022.2133180:1–21. 10.1080/09638288.2022.2133180
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09638288.2022.2133180&link_type=DOI) 

143.143.Rodakowski J, Rocco PB, Ortiz M, Folb B, Schulz R, Morton SC, et al. Caregiver Integration During Discharge Planning for Older Adults to Reduce Resource Use: A Metaanalysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2017;65:1748–55. doi:10.1111/jgs.14873
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jgs.14873&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

144.144.Mockford C. A review of family carers’ experiences of hospital discharge for people with dementia, and the rationale for involving service users in health research. Journal of healthcare leadership 2015;7:21–8. doi:10.2147/JHL.S70020
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/JHL.S70020&link_type=DOI) 

145.145.Stockwell-Smith G, Moyle W, Marshall AP, Argo A, Brown L, Howe S, et al. Hospital discharge processes involving older adults living with dementia: An integrated literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2018;27:e712–e25. doi:10.1111/jocn.14144
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jocn.14144&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom) 

146.146.Davis SF, Silvester A, Barnett D, Farndon L, Ismail M. Hearing the voices of older adult patients: processes and findings to inform health services research. Research Involvement and Engagement 2019;5:11. doi:10.1186/s40900-019-0143-5
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s40900-019-0143-5&link_type=DOI) 

147.147.Iacobucci G. NHS “winter” pressure could become norm in summer, experts warn. BMJ 2016;352:i905. doi:10.1136/bmj.i905
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNTIvZmViMTJfNi9pOTA1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMTIvMDYvMjAyMy4wMi4yMi4yMzI4NjI5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

148.148.Force RCoPAMT. Acute medical care: the right person, in the right setting-first time. abstract no. 257.
    
    

149.149.Everall AC, Guilcher SJT, Cadel L, Asif M, Li J, Kuluski K. Patient and caregiver experience with delayed discharge from a hospital setting: A scoping review. Health Expectations 2019;22:863–73. doi:10.1111/hex.12916
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hex.12916&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2F2023.02.22.23286290.atom)