4.6 Article

Do Post Discharge Phone Calls Improve Care Transitions? A Cluster-Randomized Trial

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112230

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mount Sinai Hospital Department of Medicine Physician Fund Campaign

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Importance: The transition from hospital to home can expose patients to adverse events during the post discharge period. Post discharge care including phone calls may provide support for patients returning home but the impact on care transitions is unknown. Objective: To examine the effect of a 72-hour post discharge phone call on the patient's transition of care experience. Design: Cluster-randomized control trial. Setting: Urban, academic medical center. Participants: General medical patients age 18 and older discharged home after hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measure was the Care Transition Measure (CTM-3) score, a validated measure of the quality of care transitions. Secondary measures included self-reported adherence to medication and follow up plans, and 30-day composite of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmission. Results: 328 patients were included in the study over an 6-month period. 114 (69%) received a post discharge phone call, and 214 of all patients in the study completed the follow outcome survey (65% response rate). A small difference in CTM-3 scores was observed between the intervention and control groups (1.87 points, 95% CI 0.47-3.27, p = 0.01). Self-reported adherence to treatment plans, ED visits, and emergency readmission rates were similar between the two groups (odds ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.13-2.45, 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.37, and 1.18, 95% CI 0.53-2.61, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: A single post discharge phone call had a small impact on the quality of care transitions and no effect on hospital utilization. Higher intensity post discharge support may be required to improve the patient experience upon returning home.

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

4.6
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