Abstract
Older adults who have undergone treatment as hospital inpatients and are now medically fit for discharge back into the community may require additional care to support that transition. Prolonged hospital admissions can also have risks including functional decline, dependency and the risk of hospital acquired infections.
The aim of this rapid review was to review the research evidence for the effectiveness of workforce models in the community that may be able to rapidly grow capacity for community care and help older adults leave hospital.
19 studies were included: 11 systematic reviews and 8 UK primary studies not included in the reviews (4 quantitative study designs, 1 case study,1 mixed method study and 2 qualitative studies). The 19 studies evaluated 5 different intervention areas and a range of outcomes including: hospital length of stay; bed day rates, days to early supported discharge, delayed transfers of care (DTOCs); episode length of care; mortality; readmission; and carer, patient or staff perceptions.
Intervention areas that were studied the most were: Early Supported Discharge and Transitional care/Continuity of Care. Nine recent UK studies from the systematic reviews describing these interventions were analysed separately for data on outcomes and workforce components.
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions due to the limited evidence from a UK setting, and low quality of included studies. There is insufficient information to propose an optimum service design, but the evidence does suggest that interventions that are more comprehensive (covering a range of different components) and more intensive are more likely to be effective.
Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workforce models introduced to rapidly grow capacity for community care to help older adults leave hospital in the UK setting. The Early Supported Discharge and Transitional Care models hold some promise.
Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) Rapid Review
Report number — RR00039 (July 2022)
Rapid Review Details
Rapid Review Details Review conducted by:
Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), Cardiff University
Review Team:
Helen Morgan, Alison Weightman, Kate Lifford, Lydia Searchfield, Mala Mann, Freya Davies
Review submitted to the WCEC on:
15th June 2022
Stakeholder consultation meeting:
21st June 2022
Rapid Review report issued by the WCEC on:
July 2022
WCEC Team:
Alison Cooper, Ruth Lewis, Adrian Edwards, Micaela Gal, Jane Greenwell
This review should be cited as:
RR00039. Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre. A rapid review of what innovative workforce models have helped to rapidly grow capacity for community care to help older adults leave hospital. July 2022
Disclaimer
Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, not necessarily Health and Care Research Wales. The WCEC and authors of this work declare that they have no conflict of interest.
TOPLINE SUMMARY
What is a Rapid Review?
What is a Rapid Review?Our rapid reviews use a variation of the systematic review approach, abbreviating or omitting some components to generate the evidence to inform stakeholders promptly whilst maintaining attention to bias. They follow the methodological recommendations and minimum standards for conducting and reporting rapid reviews, including a structured protocol, systematic search, screening, data extraction, quality appraisal, and evidence synthesis to answer a specific question and identify key research gaps. This Rapid Review was undertaken in four weeks to inform an urgent policy priority. Existing systematic reviews and UK primary studies were prioritised.
Who is this summary for?
Who is this summary for?The review was requested urgently from Social Care Wales and Health Education and Improvement Wales to help inform the potential workforce planning and service responses across social care and health services to create additional community care capacity to support individuals to live at home, and support timely discharge from hospital.
Background / Aim of Rapid Review
Background / Aim of Rapid Review Older adults who have undergone treatment as hospital inpatients and are now medically fit for discharge back into the community may require additional care to support that transition. Prolonged hospital admissions can also have risks including functional decline, dependency and the risk of hospital acquired infections. The aim of this review was to review the research evidence for the effectiveness of workforce models in the community that may be able to rapidly grow capacity for community care and help older adults leave hospital.
Key Findings
Key Findings 19 studies were included: 11 systematic reviews and 8 UK primary studies not included in the reviews (4 quantitative study designs, 1 case study,1 mixed method study and 2 qualitative studies).
Extent of the evidence base
Extent of the evidence base
The 19 studies evaluated 5 different intervention areas and a range of outcomes including: hospital length of stay; bed day rates, days to early supported discharge, delayed transfers of care (DTOCs); episode length of care; mortality; readmission; and carer, patient or staff perceptions.
Intervention areas that were studied the most were: Early Supported Discharge and Transitional care/Continuity of Care. Nine recent UK studies from the systematic reviews describing these interventions were analysed separately for data on outcomes and workforce components.
Recency of the evidence base
Recency of the evidence base
Articles were published 2016-2022
The UK studies extracted from the systematic reviews were published from 2000-2017.
Evidence of effectiveness
Evidence of effectiveness
The body of systematic review evidence for Early Supported Discharge is consistent and indicates that early supported discharge reduces length of hospital stay although the recent UK studies did not show a consistent pattern.
The body of systematic review evidence for Transitional care/Continuity of care is fairly consistent and tended to demonstrate a reduction in readmissions although the recent UK studies did not show a consistent pattern.
All the interventions evaluated were multi-disciplinary.
Geographical location adds to the heterogeneity in intervention designs and outcomes.
Staff perceptions, reported by Baxter et al. (2020), informing how safe transitions can be facilitated include: getting to know the patient; building relationships within and across teams and bridging gaps within the system.
Policy Implications
Policy Implications
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions due to the limited evidence from a UK setting, and low quality of included studies.
There is insufficient information to propose an optimum service design but the evidence does suggest that interventions that are more comprehensive (covering a range of different components) and more intensive are more likely to be effective.
Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workforce models introduced to rapidly grow capacity for community care to help older adults leave hospital in the UK setting.
The Early Supported Discharge and Transitional Care models hold some promise.
Strength of Evidence
Strength of Evidence
None of the systematic reviews was rated as high quality.
Of the 8 primary studies identified that were not included in the systematic reviews, 1 primary quantitative study and one primary qualitative study were rated as high quality.
The 9 UK studies identified within the systematic reviews on Early Supported Discharge and Transitional Care/Continuity of Care were not quality appraised.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Specialist Unit for Review Evidence was funded for this work by the Wales Covid-19 Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health & Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
n/a
Abbreviations
- Acronym Full
- Description
- AMSTAR
- Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews
- BAME
- Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic
- CI
- Confidence Intervals
- COPD
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- D2A
- Discharge to Assess
- DTOC
- Delayed Transfers of Care
- EIC
- Enhanced Intermediate Care
- ESD
- Early Supported Discharge
- IC
- Intermediate Care
- IWD
- Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire
- MDT
- Multi-Disciplinary Team
- MSOA
- Middle Layer Super Output Area
- NDTI
- National Development Team for Inclusion
- NRCT
- Non-Randomised Controlled Trial
- RCT
- Randomised Controlled Trial
- RoB
- Risk of Bias
- RR
- Relative Risk
- SD
- Standard Deviation
- SSANP
- Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme
- UEC
- Urgent and Emergency Care
- UK
- United Kingdom
