4.7 Review

Interventions to Reduce Hospital Length of Stay in High-risk Populations A Systematic Review

期刊

JAMA NETWORK OPEN
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.25846

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), US Department of Health and Human Services, through the Evidence-based Practice Center [75Q80120D00002, 75Q80120F32001]
  2. National Institutes of Health [NIDDK-K08DK120902-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effectiveness of system-level interventions in reducing hospital length of stay for high-risk populations. The findings showed inconsistent results across different populations, such as older patients and those with heart failure, and identified important evidence gaps in systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors.
IMPORTANCE Many strategies to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) have been implemented, but fewstudies have evaluated hospital-led interventions focused on high-risk populations. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Learning Health System panel commissioned this study to further evaluate system-level interventions for LOS reduction. OBJECTIVE To identify and synthesize evidence regarding potential systems-level strategies to reduce LOS for patients at high risk for prolonged LOS. EVIDENCE REVIEW Multiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for English-language systematic reviews from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2020, with updated searches through January 19, 2021. The scope of the protocol was determined with input from AHRQ Key Informants. Systematic reviews were included if they reported on hospital-led interventions intended to decrease LOS for high-risk populations, defined as those with high-risk medical conditions or socioeconomically vulnerable populations (eg, patients with high levels of socioeconomic risk, who are medically uninsured or underinsured, with limited English proficiency, or who are hospitalized at a safety-net, tertiary, or quaternary care institution). Exclusion criteria included interventions that were conducted outside of the hospital setting, including community health programs. Data extraction was conducted independently, with extraction of strength of evidence (SOE) ratings provided by systematic reviews; if unavailable, SOE was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center methods guide. FINDINGS Our searches yielded 4432 potential studies. We included 19 systematic reviews reported in 20 articles. The reviews described 8 strategies for reducing LOS in high-risk populations: discharge planning, geriatric assessment, medication management, clinical pathways, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary care, case management, hospitalist services, and telehealth. Interventions were most frequently designed for older patients, often those who were frail (9 studies), or patients with heart failure. There were notable evidence gaps, as there were no systematic reviews studying interventions for patients with socioeconomic risk. For patients with medically complex conditions, discharge planning, medication management, and interdisciplinary care teams were associated with inconsistent outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality) across populations. For patients with heart failure, clinical pathways and case management were associated with reduced length of stay (clinical pathways: mean difference reduction, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.44] days; case management: mean difference reduction, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.52 to 2.04] days). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This systematic review found inconsistent results across all high-risk populations on the effectiveness associated with interventions, such as discharge planning, that are often widely used by health systems. This systematic review highlights important evidence gaps, such as the lack of existing systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors, and the need for further research.

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

4.7
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