4.1 Article

Rehospitalization of Older Adults Discharged to Home Hospice Care

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 841-844

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2013.0224

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [T35AG038027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Acute hospital readmission of older adults receiving hospice care is not aligned with hospice goals. Objective: To identify factors associated with 30-day readmission among older adults newly discharged to hospice. Design/Subjects: Medical record review of 59 patients, 19 readmitted within 30 days and 40 randomly selected controls not readmitted, from 206 patients newly discharged to home hospice care between February 1, 2005 and January 31, 2010. Measures/Analysis: Information was collected about hospital course, end-of-life planning, and post-hospitalization follow-up. We calculated bivariate associations and developed a Cox Proportional Hazards model examining the relation between index admission characteristics and readmission. Results: Patients' mean age was 79.7 +/- 8.4; 74.6% were female; 52.5% were black. Among those readmitted, 25% had received a palliative care consultation, compared to 47.1% of those not readmitted (p = 0.06). Patients without a participating decision-maker involved in their hospice decision had 3.5 times the risk of readmission within 30 days, compared to those with (hazard ratio [HR] 3.53, confidence interval [CI] 0.97, 12.82). Patients who had one or more telephone contacts with their primary care physician (PCP) during week 1 after discharge had 2.4 times the readmission risk within 30 days, compared to patients with no such contacts during this period (HR 2.35, CI 0.9, 6.1). Conclusions: Readmission within 30 days of initial discharge to hospice is associated with several measures of care and care planning. Further study of these measures may identify opportunities for interventions to improve the hospital-to-hospice transition and to decrease hospital readmissions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据