Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

PRISMA flow diagram

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Funnel plot of the effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of the effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay

Funnel plot of the effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates, outcome, average follow‐up within 3 months of discharge from hospital.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of the effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates, outcome, average follow‐up within 3 months of discharge from hospital.

Comparison 1: Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay, Outcome 1: Hospital length of stay ‐ older people with a medical condition

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay, Outcome 1: Hospital length of stay ‐ older people with a medical condition

Comparison 1: Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay, Outcome 2: Hospital length of stay ‐ older people following surgery

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay, Outcome 2: Hospital length of stay ‐ older people following surgery

Hospital length of stay ‐ studies recruiting people with a mix of conditions

Study

Heading 1

Evans 1993

Initial hospital length of stay

T: Mean number of days in hospital 11.9 (SD 12.7) N=417

C: Mean number of days in hospital 12.5 (SD 13.5) N=418

Hendriksen 1990

Initial hospital length of stay

T: 11 N=135

C: 14.3 N=138

Parfrey 1994

Recruited from two hospitals, reported a median difference for one hospital: − 0.80 days, P = 0.03; Intervention N=421; Control N=420

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay, Outcome 3: Hospital length of stay ‐ studies recruiting people with a mix of conditions

Comparison 2: Effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates, Outcome 1: Average follow‐up, 3 months from discharge for the majority of studies

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates, Outcome 1: Average follow‐up, 3 months from discharge for the majority of studies

Hospital readmission rates at various follow‐up times

Study

Results 

Notes

Participants with a medical condition

Bonetti 2018

Mean hospital readmissions

T= 4 (7.8) N=51, C= 7 (13.2) (N=53)

Follow‐up: 30 days

Farris 2014

At 30 d:

T= 47/281 (17%), C = 43/294 (15%)

Difference 2%; 95% CI − 0.04% to 0.08%

At 90 d:

T= 49/281 (17%), C = 47/294 (16%)

Difference 1%; 95% CI − 5% to 8%

Gillespie 2009

At 12 months:

T= 106/182 (58.2%), C = 110/186 (59.1%)

Difference − 0.9%, 95% CI − 10.9% to 9.1%

Goldman 2014

At 30 d:

T= 50/347 (14%), C = 47/351 (13%)

Difference 1%; 95% CI − 4% to 6%

At 90 d:

I = 89/347 (26%), C = 77/351 (22%)

Difference 3.7%; 95% CI − 2.6% to 10%

Data provided by the trialists

Kennedy 1987

At 1 week:
T= 2/38 (5%), C = 8/40 (20%)
Difference − 15%; 95% CI − 29% to − 0.4%

At 8 weeks:
I = 11/39 (28%), C = 14/40 (35%)
Difference − 7%; 95% CI − 27.2% to 13.6%

Lainscak 2013

At 90 d:

COPD− related

T= 14/118 (12%), C = 33/135 (24%)

Difference 12%; 95% CI 3% to 22%

All‐cause readmission

T = 25/118 (21%), C = 43/135 (32%)

Difference 11%; 95% CI − 0.3% to 21%

Data provided by the trialists; data also available for 30− and 180− d

Laramee 2003

At 90 d:
T = 49/131 (37%), C = 46/125 (37%), P > 0.99

Readmission days:
T= 6.9 (SD 6.5), C = 9.5 (SD 9.8)

Lindpaintner 2013

Similar readmission rate to hospital for both groups at 5 and 30 days

As reported by the authors; no further data reported

T = 30, C = 30

Lisby 2019

At 30 d:

T = 22/101 (22%), C = 19/99 (19%)

Difference 3%; 95% CI ‐8.2% to 14.13

Total readmissions:

T = 0.28 (SD 0.67); C = 0.26 (SD 0.63)

Number of participants who were admitted at least once in each group

Authors also report days to first readmission, and preventable first readmission

Ascertained by chart review

T = 101, C = 99

Moher 1992

At 2 weeks:
T = 22/136 (16%), C = 18/131 (14%)
Difference 2%; 95% CI − 6% to 11%, P = 0.58

Naylor 1994

Within 45‐90 d:
T = 11/72 (15%), C = 11/70 (16%)
Difference 1%; 95% CI − 8% to 12%

Authors also report readmission data for 2‐6 weeks follow up

Nazareth 2001

At 90 d:
T = 64/164 (39%), C = 69/176 (39.2%)
Difference 0.18; 95% CI − 10.6% to 10.2%

At 180 d:
T = 38/136 (27.9%), C = 43/151 (28.4%)
Difference 0.54; 95% CI − 11 to 9.9%

Nguyen 2018

Total number of participants readmitted

T = 7/58 (12%), C = 6/68 (9%)

Difference 3%, 95% CI ‐7.99 to 14.81

Follow‐up: 90 days

Weinberger 1996

Number of readmissions per month
T = 0.19 (+ 0.4) (n = 695), C = 0.14 (+ 0.2), P = 0.005 (n = 701)

At 6 months:
T = 49%, C = 44%, P = 0.06
Treatment group readmitted 'sooner' (P = 0.07)

Non‐parametric test used to calculate P values for monthly readmissions

Participants with medical or surgical condition

Evans 1993

At 4 weeks:
T = 103/417 (24%), C = 147/418 (35%)
Difference − 10.5%; 95% CI − 16.6% to − 4.3%, P < 0.001

At 9 months:
T = 229/417 (55%), C = 254/418 (61%)
Difference − 5.8%; 95% CI −12.5% to 0.84%, P = 0.08

Participants recruited following surgery

Lin 2009

Within 3 months:

T=2/26 (7.7%), C=2/24 (8.3%)

Naylor 1994

Within 6 to 12 weeks:
T = 7/68 (10%), C = 5/66 (7%)
Difference 3%; 95% CI 7% to 13%

Participants with a mental health diagnosis

Naji 1999

At 6 months:
T = 33/168 (19.6%), C = 48/175 (27%)
Difference 7.4%; 95% CI − 1.1% to 16.7%

Mean time to readmission T = 161 d, C = 153 d

T: treatment; C: control; CI: confidence interval

Shaw 2000

At 90 d:
T = 5/51 (10%), C = 12/46 (26%)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates, Outcome 2: Hospital readmission rates at various follow‐up times

Comparison 3: Effect of discharge planning on health status, Outcome 1: Mortality at 3 to 9 months

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Effect of discharge planning on health status, Outcome 1: Mortality at 3 to 9 months

Mortality for trials recruiting participants with a medical condition and those recovering from surgery

Study

Mortality at 9 months

Notes

Evans 1993

T = 66/417 (16%)
C = 67/418 (16%)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Effect of discharge planning on health status, Outcome 2: Mortality for trials recruiting participants with a medical condition and those recovering from surgery

Patient‐reported outcomes: a medical condition

Study

Patient health outcomes

Notes

Patients with a medical condition

Cajanding 2017

MLHFQ

Mean difference (C ‐ T)

8.59 (SD 2.29), 95% CI 4.02 to 13.16

CSE

Mean difference (C ‐ T)

‐5.61 (SD 1.13), 95% CI ‐7.87 to ‐3.36

Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ): a lower score indicates less disability from symptoms

Cardiac Self‐Efficacy Questionnaire (CSE): higher scores represent higher self‐confidence

Follow‐up: 30 days

As reported by the authors, mean difference at follow‐up

T = 75, C = 68

C: control; T: treatment; SD: standard deviation

Harrison 2002

SF‐36

Baseline

Physical component

T = 28.63 (SD 9.46) N = 78
C = 28.35 (SD 9.11) N = 78

Mental component

T = 50.49 (SD 12.45) N = 78
C = 49.81 (SD 11.36) N = 78

At 12 weeks

Physical component

T = 32.05  (SD 11.81) N = 77
C = 28.31 (SD 10.0) N = 74

Mental component

T = 53.94 (SD 12.32) N = 78
C = 51.03 (SD 11.51) N = 78

MLHFQ

At 12 week follow‐up (See table 4) n, %

Worse: T = 6/79 (8), C = 22/76 (29)
Same: T = 7/79 (9), C = 10/76 (13)
Better: T = 65/79 (83), C = 44/76 (58)

SF‐36 a higher score indicates better health status

MLHFQ: a lower score indicates less disability from symptoms

T = 79, C = 76 (at 12 week follow‐up)

Kennedy 1987

Long Term Care Information System (LTCIS)
Health and functional status (also measures services required)

No data reported

T = 39, C = 41

Lainscak 2013

St. George’s Respiratory
Questionnaire (SGRQ)

Change in score from 7 to 180 days after discharge

T = 1.06 (IQR CI 8.43 to − 9.50), C = − 0.11 (IQR 8.12 to − 11.34)

Complete data available for approximately half of the participants allocated to the intervention and comparison groups

For the SGRQ, higher scores indicate more limitations; minimal clinically important difference estimated as 4 points.

T = 63, C = 72

Lisby 2019

VAS

T = 60.4 (95% CI 55.4 to 65.5), N = 76; C = 60.2 (95% CI 55.1 to 65.4), N = 81. P = 0.96

Visual Analogue Scale (0‐100, higher scores represent better perceived health)

Mean scores at 30 days post‐discharge; authors also report EQ‐5D scores for each item

T = 76, C = 81

Naylor 1994

Data aggregated for both groups. Mean Enforced Social Dependency Scale increased from 19.6 to 26.3 P < 0.01

Decline in functional status reported for all patients.

Scale measured:

  • Mental status

  • Perception of health

  • Self‐esteem

  • Affect

T = 72, C = 70

Nazareth 2001

General well‐being questionnaire: 1 = ill health, 5 = good health
At 3 months:
T = 76, mean 2.4 (SD 0.7)
C = 73, mean 2.4 (SD 0.6)

At 6 months:
T = 62, mean 2.5 (SD 0.6)
C = 61, mean 2.4 (SD 0.7)

Mean difference 0.10; 95% CI − 0.14 to 0.34

T = 62, C = 61 (at 6 months follow‐up)

Nguyen 2018

EQ‐5D‐3L

T = median 0.000 (IQR 0.000 to 0.275), C = 0.234 (IQR 0.000 to 0.379)

European Quality of Life Questionnaire – (EQ‐5D‐3L). Dimensions: mobility, self‐care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels: no problem, some problems, and extreme problems

IQR: Interquartile range

T = 79, C = 87

Follow‐up: 90 days

Changes in quality of life from baseline at the first 3 months after discharge. Data as reported by the authors, no additional data available

Preen 2005

SF‐12

Mental component score

Predischarge score:

T = 37.4 SD 5.4
C = 39.8 SD 6.1

7 d postdischarge:

T = 42.4 SD 5.6
C = 40.9 SD 5.7

Physical component score

Predischarge score:

T = 27.8 SD 4.8
C = 28.3 SD 4.7

7 d postdischarge:

T = 27.2 SD 4.5
C = 27.2 SD 4.1

Baseline N: T 91 C 98

Number at follow‐up not reported.

Rich 1995

Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire

Total score

At baseline:

T = 72.1 (15.6), C = 74.4 (16.3) 

At 90 d:

T = 94.3 (21.3), C = 85.7 (19.0)

Change score = 22.1 (20.8), P = 0.001 

Dyspnoea

At baseline:

T = 9.0 (7.9), C = 8.1 (7.7) 

At 90 d:

T = 15.8 (12.8), C = 11.9 (10.0)

Change score 6.8 (7.9)

Fatigue

At baseline:

T = 12.9 (5.3), C = 14.1 (5.6)

At 90 d:

T = 18.3 (6.3), C = 16.8 (5.5)

Change score 5.4 (5.5) 

Emotional function

At baseline:

T = 31.9 (8.5), C = 33.3 (8.1)

At 90 d:

T = 37.4 (7.8), C = 35.2 (8.4)

Change score 5.6 (7.1)

Environmental mastery

At baseline:

T = 18.3 (5.8), C = 18.9 (4.8)

At 90 d:

T = 22.7 (4.9), C = 21.7 (4.6)

Change score 4.4 (5.3)

Treatment N = 67, Control N = 59

Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire contains 20 questions that the patient is asked to rate on a scale 1 to 7 with a low score indicating poor quality of life

Sulch 2000

Barthel activities of daily living
Median scores

At 4 weeks:
T = 13, C = 11

At 12 weeks:
T = 15, C = 17

At 26 weeks:
T = 17, C = 17

Median change from 4 to 12 weeks: P < 0.01

Rankin score
Median score

At 4 weeks:
T = 1, C = 1

At 12 weeks:
T = 3, C = 3

At 26 weeks:
T = 3, C = 3

Hospital anxiety and depression scale
Anxiety
Median scores

At 4 weeks:
T = 5, C = 5

At 12 weeks:
T = 4, C = 4

At 26 weeks
T = 4, C = 4

Depression
Median scores

At 4 weeks:
T = 6, C = 5

At 12 weeks:
T = 5, C = 5

At 26 weeks:
T = 5, C = 5

EuroQol
At 4 weeks:
T = 41, C = 44

Median scores
At 4 weeks:
T = 41, C = 44
P = 0.10

At 12 weeks:
T = 59, C = 65
P = 0.07

At 26 weeks:
T = 63, C = 72
P < 0.005

The Barthel ADL Index covers activities of daily living; scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating better functioning.

The Rankin scale assesses activities of daily living in people who have had a stroke; it contains 7 items with scores ranging from 0 to 6. Higher scores indicating more disability.

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale is a 14‐item Likert scale (0‐3); scores range from 0 to 21 for each subscale (anxiety and depression), with higher scores indicating more burden from symptoms.

The EuroQol contains 5 items; higher scores indicate better self‐perceived health status.

Baseline T = 76, C = 76

Weinberger 1996

At 1 month: no significant differences
P = 0.99

At 3 months: no significant differences
P = 0.53

SF‐36
T = 695, C = 701
No data shown

Patient report outcomes following surgery

Lin 2009

OARS Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire (Chinese version) at 3 months follow‐up

Mean (SD)

T = 16.92 (1.41)

C = 16.83 (1.71)

9 components, each component scored 0 to 2 with a total score range 0‐18.

T = 26, C = 24

 

Naylor 1994

No differences between groups reported

Decline in functional status reported for all patients.

Scale measured:

  • Mental status

  • Perception of health

  • Self‐esteem

  • Affect

T = 68, C = 66

Patients with a medical or surgical condition

Evans 1993

At 1 month: mean (SD)
T = 85.3 (21.0) n = 417
C = 86.5 (21.0) n = 418
Difference − 1.2; 95% CI − 4.05 to 1.65

Barthel score
(scale 1 to 100)

Patients with a mental health diagnosis

Naji 1999

Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale
At 1 month after discharge, median (IQR)

Anxiety
T = 11.0 (6.0, 15.0), C = 10.0 (5.0, 14.0)
Mann Whitney P = 0.413

Depression
T = 9.5 (5.0, 13.3), C = 7.0 (3.0, 11.0)
Mann Whitney P = 0.016

Behavioural and Symptom Identification Scale

Relation to self/other
T = 1.8 (1.2, 2.8), C = 1.7 (0.4, 2.7)
Mann Whitney P = 0.10 

Depression/anxiety
T = 1.7 (0.8, 2.7), C = 1.5 (0.4, 2.4)
Mann Whitney P = 0.46

Daily living/role functioning
T = 2.0 (0.9, 2.8), C = 1.8 (0.8, 2.8)
Mann Whitney P = 0.37

Impulsive/addictive behaviour
T = 0.7 (0.3, 1.6), C = 0.7 (0.1, 1.5)
Mann Whitney P = 0.89

Psychosis
T = 0.5 (0.2, 0.8), C = 0.7 (0.2, 1.0)
Mann Whitney P = 0.31

Total symptom score
T = 1.4 (0.6, 2.1), C = 1.3 (0.5, 2.1)
Mann Whitney P = 0.54

Number recruited: T=168; C=175

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Effect of discharge planning on health status, Outcome 3: Patient‐reported outcomes: a medical condition

Satisfaction

Study

Satisfaction

Notes

Patient and care givers' satisfaction

Cajanding 2017

SF‐PSQ‐18

Mean difference (C ‐ T)

‐17.33 (SD 2.73), 95% CI ‐22.78 to ‐11.89

Short‐Form Patient Questionnaire (SF‐PSQ‐18): higher scores represent more satisfaction with medical care.

Follow‐up: 30 days

N: T = 75, C = 68

As reported by the authors, mean difference at follow‐up

Laramee 2003

Mean hospital care: T = 4.2, C = 4.0, P = 0.003

Mean hospital discharge: T = 4.3, C = 4.0, P < 0.001

Mean care instructions: T = 4.0, C = 3.4, P < 0.001

Mean recovering at home: T = 4.4, C = 3.9, P < 0.001

Mean total score: T = 4.2, C = 3.8, P < 0.001

16‐item survey, 4 subscales (hospital care, hospital discharge, care instructions, and recovering at home). Items scored 1 to 5, higher scores reflect more satisfaction.

N: T = 120, C = 100

Follow‐up: 3 months

Lindpaintner 2013

Satisfaction with discharge process

At 5 days (median and IQR)

Patients: T = 1 (0), C = 1 (1‐2)

Carers: T = 1 (0), C = 1 (1‐2)

At 30 days

Patients: T = 1 (1‐2), C = 1 (1‐2)

Carers: T = 1 (1‐2), C = 2 (1‐3)

4‐point Likert‐scale, lower scores indicate higher satisfaction

N: T = 30, C = 30

Follow‐up: 5 and 30 days

Lisby 2019

Overall satisfaction with discharge process: high or very high

T = 48/74 (65%), C = 46/71 (65%)

Difference 0%, 95% CI ‐15.24 to 15.18

Follow‐up: 30 days

Single question, Likert‐scale

Moher 1992

Satisfied with medical care:
T = 89%, C = 62%
Difference 27%; 95% CI 2% to 52%, P < 0.001

"Please rate how satisfied you were with the care you received…"

Subgroup of 40 patients, responses from 18 in the treatment group and 21 in the control group

T = 136, C = 131

Follow‐up: 2 weeks

Nazareth 2001

At 3 months:
T = 76, mean 3.3 (SD 0.6)
C = 73, mean 3.3 (SD 0.6)

At 6 months:
T = 62, mean 3.4 (SD 0.6)
C = 61, mean 3.2 (SD 0.6)
Mean difference 0.20; 95% CI − 0.56 to 0.96

Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score, 7 items (1 = dissatisfied, 4 = satisfied), higher scores indicate higher satisfaction.

Follow‐up: 3 and 6 months

Weinberger 1996

At 1 month:
Treatment group more satisfied, P < 0.001

At 6 months:
Treatment group more satisfied, P < 0.001

Authors report differences were greatest for patients' perceptions of continuity of care and non‐financial access to medical care

Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, 11 domains with a 5‐point scale

T = 695, C = 701

Follow‐up: 1 and 6 months

Professional's satisfaction

Bolas 2004

Standard of information at discharge improved

GPs: 57% agreed

Community pharmacists: 95% agreed

Response rate of 55% (GPs) and 56% (community pharmacists)

No information provided about the survey

Lindpaintner 2013

Satisfaction with discharge process

At 5 days (median and IQR)

Primary care physician: T = 1 (1‐2), C = 2 (1‐3)

Visiting nurse: T = 1 (1‐2), C = 2 (1‐4)

At 30 days (median and IQR)

Primary care physician: T = 2 (1‐3), C = 1 (1‐2)

Number of respondents ranged between 15 (visiting nurse) and 30 (PCP)

4‐point Likert scale, lower scores indicate higher satisfaction

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: Effect of discharge planning on satisfaction with care process, Outcome 1: Satisfaction

Hospital cost

Study

Costs

Notes

Patients with a medical condition

Gillespie 2009

Total

T: USD 12000; C: USD 12500

Mean difference: − USD 400 (− USD 4000 to USD 3200)

Visits to ED

T: USD 160; C: USD 260

Mean difference: − USD 100 (− USD 220 to − USD 10)

Readmissions

T: USD 12000; C: USD 12300 Mean difference: − USD 300 (− USD 3900 to USD 3300)

Costs calculated for 2008

T = 182, C = 186

Jack 2009

Emergency department visits

T: USD 11,285 C: USD 21,389

Hospital visits

T: USD 268,942 C: USD 412,544

Follow‐up primary care appointments*

T: USD 12,617 C: USD 8906

Total cost difference between groups

USD 149,995, Mean USD 412 per participant

Follow‐up PCP appointments were given an estimated cost of USD 55, on the basis of costs from an average hospital follow‐up visit at Boston Medical Center

* For 62% of 370 intervention participants and 44% of 368 usual care participants

As reported by the authors, no further data available

T = 373, C = 376

Laramee 2003

Total inpatient and outpatient median costs
T = USD 15,979
C = USD 18,662

P = 0.14

The case manager (CM) kept a log during the first, middle and last 4 weeks of the recruitment period of how much time was spent with each patient during the 12‐week study period. Thus,
the average cost of the intervention was calculated based on an hourly wage (including benefits) of USD 33.93 for the CM. The average intervention cost per patient was USD 228.52, and the average time spent with each intervention patient was 6.7 h per 12 weeks.

T = 141, C = 146

Naughton 1994

Number:
T = 51, C = 60
Total cost of hospital care including breakdown of costs for laboratory, diagnostic imaging, pharmacy and rehabilitation services

Naylor 1994

Initial stay mean charges (USD):
T = 24,352 ± 15,920 (n = 72)
C = 23,810 ± 18,449 (n = 70)
Difference 542 (CI − 5121 to 6205)

Medical readmission total charges in USD (CIs are in thousands):

At 2 weeks:
T = 68,754
C = 239,002
Difference = − 170,247 (CI − 253 to − 87)

2‐6 weeks:
T = 52,384
C = 189,892
Difference = − 137,508 (CI − 210 to − 67)

6‐12 weeks:
T = 471,456
C = 340,496
Difference = 130,960 (CI − 205 to 467)

Charge data were used to calculate the cost of the initial hospitalisation

Readmission costs were calculated using the mean charge per day of the index hospitalisations times the actual number of days of subsequent hospitalisations, as patients were readmitted to a variety of hospitals with a wide range of charges

Total charges including readmission charges (first readmission only if multiple readmissions)

T = 140, C = 136

Rich 1995

Intervention cost

USD 216 per patient

Caregiver cost

T = USD 1164, C = USD 828
Difference USD 336

Other medical care

T = USD 1257, C = USD 1211
Difference USD 46

Readmission costs

T = USD 2178, C = USD 3236
Difference − USD 1058

All costs

T = USD 4815, C = USD 5275
Difference − USD 460

T = 142, C = 140

Patients with a surgical condition

Naylor 1994

Surgical initial stay mean charges (USD):
T = 105,936 ± 52,356 (n = 68)
C = 98,640 ± 52,331 (n = 66)
Difference 7296 (CI − 5141 to 19,733)

Charge data were used to calculate the cost of the initial hospitalisation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5: Effect of discharge planning on hospital resource use and cost, Outcome 1: Hospital cost

Primary and community care resource use and cost

Study

Use of services

Notes

Farris 2014

Unscheduled office visits

At 30 d

T = 31/281 (11%), C = 32/294 (11%)

Difference 0%; 95% CI − 5% to 5%

At 90 d

T = 42/281 (15%), C = 33/294 (11%)

Difference 4%; 95% CI − 2 to 9%

Results for Enhanced vs Control intervention (results for minimal intervention not reported)

Goldman 2014

Primary care visits at 30 d

T = 189/301 (62.8%), C = 186/316 (58.9%)

Difference 4%; 95% CI − 3.7% to 11.5%

Laramee 2003

Visiting Nurse postdischarge:
T = 70/141(50%), Control: 64/146 (44%)

Lisby 2019

General practitioner contacts

T = mean 3.6 (SD 2.3), C = mean 3.5 (SD 2.5)

After‐hours visits

T = mean 1.6 (SD 0.8), C = mean 1.9 (SD 1.7)

Follow‐up: 30 days

Ascertained by chart review

T = 86, C = 93

SD: standard deviation

Nazareth 2001

General practice attendance:

At 3 months:
T = 101/130 (77.7%)
C = 108/144 (75%)
Difference 2.7%; 95% CI − 7.4 to 12.7%

At 6 months:
T = 76/107 (71%)
C = 82/116 (70.7%)
Difference 0.3%; 95% CI −11.6 to 12.3%

Weinberger 1996

Median time from hospital discharge to the first visit:
Treatment 7 d
Control 13 d
P < 0.001

Visit at least one general medicine clinic in 6‐month follow up:
Treatment 646/695 (93%)
Control 540/701 (77%)
Difference 16%; 95% CI 12.3% to 19.6%, P < 0.001

Mean number of visits to general medical clinic:
Treatment 3.7
Control 2.2
P < 0.001

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5: Effect of discharge planning on hospital resource use and cost, Outcome 2: Primary and community care resource use and cost

Problems with medication after discharge from hospital

Study

Results

Notes

Bolas 2004

Intervention group demonstrated a higher rate of reconciliation of patient's own drugs with the discharge prescription; 90% compared to the 44% in the control group

T = 119, C = 124

Bonetti 2018

Number of medication problems per participant

T = M 1 (SD 1.5), C = M 4 (SD 4.2)

Difference 3, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.2

Follow‐up: 30 days

Reviewed by a pharmacist

T = 51, C = 51

M: mean, SD: standard error

Eggink 2010

Following a review of medication by a pharmacist, 68% in the control group had at least one discrepancy or medication error compared to 39% in the intervention group (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88). The percent of medications with a discrepancy or error in the intervention group was 6.1% in intervention group and 14.6% in the control group (RR = 0.42; 0.27 to 0.66).

T = 41, C = 44

Follow‐up: 6 weeks

Reviewed by a pharmacist

Farris 2014

Discharge

T = 7.1 (SD 7.0), C = 6.1 (SD 6.6)

30 days post‐discharge

T = 10.1 (SD 8.9), C = 9.6 (SD 9.5)

P = 0.78

90 days post‐discharge

T = 11.6 (SD 10.5), C = 11.1 (11.3)

P = 0.94

T=307, C=309 at 30 day follow‐up

As measured by the medication appropriateness index (MAI); summed MAI per participant

Results for Enhanced v Control intervention (results for minimal intervention not reported)

Kripalani 2012

Clinically important medication errors (total number of events; could be more than one per patient)

At 30 d

T = 370/423, M = 0.87 (SD 1.18)

C = 407/428, M = 0.95 (SD 1.36)

Follow‐up: 30 days

Shaw 2000

Mean number of problems (SD)

At 1 week:
T = 2.0 (1.3), C = 2.5 (1.6)

At 4 weeks:
T = 1.9 (1.5), C = 2.9 (1.8)

At 12 weeks:
T = 1.4 (1.2), C = 2.4 (1.6)

Difference 1, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.6

Problems included difficulty obtaining a prescription from the GP; insufficient knowledge about medication; non‐compliance

T = 51, C = 46

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6: Effect of discharge planning on medication use, Outcome 1: Problems with medication after discharge from hospital

Adherence to medicines

Study

Adherence to medicines

Notes

Bonetti 2018

Total MedTake

T = mean 92.1 (SD 9.9), C = 58.5 (SD 31.9)

ARMS

T = mean 13 (SD 2), C = 15 (SD 4)

Total MedTake: drug‐taking procedures for oral prescriptions; evaluates dosage, indications, food or water co‐ingestion, and regimens. Score corresponds to the percentage of correct actions (0%: zero adherence; 100%: total adherence)

Adherence to Refils and Medications Scale (ARMS): medication adherence scale for patients with chronic medical conditions; 14 items, scores range between 12 and 48, higher scores reflect lower adherence.

Self‐reported

T: 49, C: 49

Follow‐up 30 days

T: treatment; C: control; SD: standard deviation

Nazareth 2001

At 3 months:
T = 79, mean 0.75 (SD 0.3), C = 72 mean 0.75 (SD 0.28)

At 6 months:
T = 60, mean 0.78 (SD 0.30), C = 58 mean 0.78 (SD 0.30)

0 = none
1 = total/highest level

Nguyen 2018

Participants assessed as adhering to their medication

T = 53/70 (76%), C = 52/80 (65%)

Absolute difference 11%, 95% ‐5.9 to 26.00)

Follow‐up: 3 months

Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS‐8): 8‐item questionnaire (items 1‐7 are dichotomous, last item is a Likert‐ale). for identification of barriers and behaviours associated with medication adherence.

Rich 1995

Taking 80% or more of prescribed pills at 30 d after discharge

T = 117/142 (82.5%), C = 91/140  (64.9%)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6: Effect of discharge planning on medication use, Outcome 2: Adherence to medicines

Knowledge about medicines

Study

Knowledge

Notes

Bolas 2004

Mean error rate in knowledge of drug therapy at 10‐14 d follow up

Drug name T = 15%, C = 43%, P < 0.001

Drug dose T = 14%, C = 39%, P < 0.001

Frequency T = 15%, C = 39%, P < 0.001

(n for each group not reported)

Nazareth 2001

At 3 months:
T = 86, mean 0.69 (SD 0.33)
C = 83, mean 0.62 (SD 0.34)

At 6 months:
T = 65, mean 0.69 (SD 0.35)
C = 68, mean 0.68 (SD 0.30)
Mean difference 0.01; 95% CI − 0.12 to 0.13

0 = none
1 = total/highest level

Shaw 2000

At 1 and 12 weeks post‐discharge:

Significant improvement in knowledge medication for both groups (no differences between groups)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6: Effect of discharge planning on medication use, Outcome 3: Knowledge about medicines

Discharge destination for people with a medical condition

Study

Place of discharge

Notes

Goldman 2014

Discharged to a residential care setting:

T = 19/347 (5.5%), C = 9/352 (2.6%)

Difference 2.9%; 95% CI − 0.04% to 6%

Kennedy 1987

At 2 weeks:
87% no change in placement from time of discharge to 2‐week follow‐up time (both groups)
At 4 weeks: majority no change (both groups)

No data shown

Legrain 2011

Discharged home or to a nursing home:

T = 183/300

C = 191/339

Lindpaintner 2013

Discharged home

T = 25/30 (83%), C = 30/30 (100%)

Difference 17%, 95% CI 2 to 34%

Moher 1992

Discharged home:
T = 111/136 (82%), C = 104/131 (79%)
Difference 2.2%; 95% CI − 7.3% to 11.7%

Naughton 1994

Discharged to nursing home:
T = 3/51 (5.9%) C = 2/60 (3.3%)
Difference 2.5%; 95% CI − 5.3% to 10.4%

Sulch 2000

Discharged home:
T = 56/76 (74%), C = 54/76 (71%)

Discharged to an institution:
T = 10/76 (13%), C = 16/76 (21%)
OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.5 to 2.8

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7: Effect of discharge planning on place of discharge, Outcome 1: Discharge destination for people with a medical condition

Discharge destination, studies recruiting people with a medical or surgical condition

Study

Place of discharge

Notes

Evans 1993

Discharged to home:
T = 330/417 (79%), C = 305/418 (73%)
P = 0.04 difference 6%; 95% CI 0.39% to 12%

Home at 9 months:
T = 259/417 (62%), C = 225/418 (54%)
P = 0.01 difference 8.3%; 95% CI 1.6% to 15%

Hendriksen 1990

Discharged to nursing home:
T = 0/135 (0%), C = 3/138 (2%)
Difference − 2%; 95% CI − 4.6% to 0.26%

At 6 months: admitted to another institution
T = 3/135 (2%), C = 14/138 (10%)
Difference ‐8%; 95% CI − 13.5% to − 2.3%

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7: Effect of discharge planning on place of discharge, Outcome 2: Discharge destination, studies recruiting people with a medical or surgical condition

Summary of findings 1. Effect of discharge planning on patients admitted to hospital

Effect of discharge planning on patients admitted to hospital

Patient or population: patients admitted to hospital with a medical condition (27 trials), with a mix of medical and surgical conditions (4 trials), following a fall (1 trial), with a psychiatric diagnosis (2 trials), with a mix of mental health and medical diagnosis.
Settings: hospital; North America (16 trials), Europe (13 trials), Asia (4 trials), South America (1 trial), Oceania (1 trial)
Intervention: discharge planning

Comparison: usual care, mostly with some discharge planning but without a formal link through a coordinator to other departments and services
 

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Without discharge planning

With discharge planning

Hospital length of stay
Follow‐up: 3 to 6 months

Study population admitted with a medical condition

 

 

(MD ‐0.73, 95% CI ‐1.33 to ‐0.12)

 

 

 

 

2113
(11 trials)
 

 

 

 

 

 

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderateb

Gillespie 2009Harrison 2002Laramee 2003Lindpaintner 2013Moher 1992Naughton 1994Naylor 1994Preen 2005Rich 1993Rich 1995Sulch 2000

The mean hospital length of stay ranged across control groups from
5.2 to 12.4 daysa

The mean hospital length of stay in the intervention groups was
0.73 lower
(95% CI 1.33 to ‐0.12 lower)

Unscheduled readmission

 

Follow‐up: 2 weeks to 6 months

Study population admitted with a medical condition

RR 0.89
(0.81 to 0.97)

5126
(17 trials)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderateb

Balaban 2008Bonetti 2018Farris 2014Goldman 2014Harrison 2002Jack 2009Kennedy 1987Lainscak 2013Laramee 2003Legrain 2011Lisby 2019Moher 1992Naylor 1994Nazareth 2001Nguyen 2018Rich 1993Rich 1995

271 per 1,000

242 per 1000
(200 to 263)

Patient health status

Mortality (follow‐up 3 to 9 months)

110 per 1,000

115 per 1,000

RR 1.05 (0.85 to 1.29)

2721 (8 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝b

moderate

Goldman 2014Lainscak 2013Laramee 2003Legrain 2011Nazareth 2001Nguyen 2018Rich 1995Sulch 2000

Functional status and psychological health (follow‐up 1 to 6 months)

Most studies reported little or no differences between groups for general and disease‐specific health‐related quality of life (Harrison 2002Kennedy 1987Lainscak 2013Lisby 2019Naylor 1994Nazareth 2001Nguyen 2018Preen 2005Weinberger 1996; measured with EQ‐5D‐3L, LTCIS, SF‐12, SF‐36, VAS).

Two studies that recruited participants with heart failure reported less disability (MLHFQ; MD 8.59, 95% CI 4.02 to 13.16; Cajanding 2017) and better quality of life (CHFQ; MD 22.1, SD 20.8; Rich 1995) for those allocated to the intervention. Sulch 2000 recruited participants recovering from a stroke and reported that those allocated to the intervention scored worse on activities of daily living and quality of life (EQ‐5D), with little or no difference between groups for stroke‐related disability (Rankin score) and anxiety and depression symptoms (HADS).

2927 (12 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowc

 

Satisfaction of patients, care givers and healthcare professionals

 

Follow‐up: 2 weeks to 6 months

 

Measured with PSQ, SF‐PSQ‐18, in‐house developed questions

Four studies reported an increased level of satisfaction for participants allocated to the intervention group (Cajanding 2017Laramee 2003Moher 1992Weinberger 1996), and three little or no difference (Nazareth 2001; (Lindpaintner 2013Lisby 2019). One small study reported that care givers of participants allocated to the intervention group were more satisfied with the discharge process, and little or no difference for healthcare professionals (Lindpaintner 2013).

756 participants when reported (8 trials)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very lowd

Satisfaction was measured in different ways (SF‐PSQ‐18 Short‐Form Patient Questionnaire, PSQ Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire) and findings were not consistent across studies; 8/35 studies reported data for this outcome.

Healthcare resource use and costs

Eleven trials reported findings on an aspect of cost to the health service, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in hospital, primary or community care costs when discharge planning is implemented for patients with a medical condition (Farris 2014Gillespie 2009Goldman 2014Jack 2009Laramee 2003Lisby 2019Naughton 1994Nazareth 2001Rich 1995Weinberger 1996), or who are in hospital for surgery (Naylor 1994).

 

5220 participants (11 trials)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very lowd

Healthcare resources that were costed and charges varied among trials.

*The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CHFQ: Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire; CI: Confidence interval;EQ‐5D: European Quality of Life Questionnaire; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale; LTCIS: Long Term Care Information System; MD: Mean difference; MLHFQ: Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire; RR: Risk ratio; SF: Short Form Survey; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High:This research provides a very good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different (i.e., large enough to affect a decision) is low.
Moderate: This research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
Low: This research provides some indication of the likely effect. However, the likelihood that it will be substantially different is high.
Very low: This research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is very high.

a The range excludes length of stay of 45 days reported by Sulch, due to recruiting participants who were recovering from a stroke and had a longer length of stay.

b We downgraded the evidence to moderate due to imprecision

c We downgraded the evidence to low due to concerns about inconsistency and imprecision

d We downgraded the evidence to very low due to very serious inconsistency and imprecision

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Effect of discharge planning on patients admitted to hospital
Table 1. Intervention characteristics

Study ID

Components of the assessment and implementation of the discharge plan

Aim, focus and content of the discharge plan

Follow‐up as part of the discharge planning intervention

Control group care

Balaban 2008

Discharge planning lead: discharge planner registered nurse

Timing of discharge plan: enrolled at admission to hospital

Education:a patient discharge form for the patient that included information about the patient's health problem/diagnosis, medications, and follow‐up care

Implementation of the discharge plan: discharge form was sent electronically to the primary care team to become part of the permanent medical records.

A discharge plan to improve communication between inpatient and outpatient care teams abd to reconnect patients who lived at home with their primary care team, using a structure‐process‐outcome approach. The intervention was structured for a culturally diverse population.

Telephone call: the day after discharge from hospital, from the primary care nurse

No communication between hospital and primary care nurse, handwritten discharge instruction in English, communication with hospital and primary care physician as required.

Bolas 2004

Discharge planning lead: one full‐time clinical pharmacist clinical pharmacy service

Timing of discharge plan: within 48 hours of admission to hospital

Education: patient counselling to explain changes to medication

Implementation of the discharge plan: daily contact with the patient to explain changes to treatement, medication history, personalised medication record, discharge letter outlining drug history and changes to medication during hospital and variances to discharge prescription. This was faxed to GP and community pharmacist. Personalised medicine card, discharge counselling, labelling of dispensed medications under the same headings for follow‐up.

A hospital based community liaison pharmacist to improve the management of medicines and communication between secondary and primary care during transition from secondary to primary care.

Medicines help line

Standard clinical pharmacy service that did not include discharge counselling

Bonnetti 2018

Discharge planning lead: pharmacist‐led medication counselling

Timing of discharge plan: recruited when admitted to hospital, review of discharge medications

Education: verbal counseling was delivered by the pharmacists to patients or their caregivers, which included explanations about the indications, benefits, therapeutic targets, doses, dosing schedule, routes, storage, length of therapy, refill pharmacy, and possible ADEs of each prescribed drug.

Implementation of the discharge plan: All pharmacist interventions followed a structured format.

A pharmacist led review of medicines to improve communication about medicines during transition from hospital.

Patients were contacted by telephone three and 15 days post‐discharge to reinforce the previous counseling session.

Standard care from pharmacists and other healthcare providers

Cajanding 2017

Discharge planning lead: cardiovascular nurse practitioner led structured discharge plan

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: the second day of a hospital admission

Education: individualized lecture type discussion, provision of feedback, integrative problem solving, goal setting, and action planning at 3 consecutive daily sessions lasting between 30 to 45 minutes

Implementation of the discharge plan: a structured programme based from the guidelines set by the American Heart Association, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and the Philippine Heart Association.

A nurse led structured discharge programme to improve the quality of care and support the transition from hospital to home

Telephone at 3 and 15 days for the intervention group

Usual care based on the Philippine Heart Association clinical practice guidelines

Eggink 2010

Discharge planning lead: clinical pharmicist

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: at discharge

Education: none

Implementation of the discharge plan: verbal and written information about (side) effects of, and changes in, their in hospital drug therapy from a clinical pharmacist upon hospital discharge and the discharge medication list was faxed to the community pharmacist, a copy was provide to the patient to give to the GP.

A multifaceted clinical pharmacist discharge service on the number of medications discrepancies after discharge, recruited participants had 5 + medicines prescribed

Not reported

Usual care

Evans 1993

Discharge planning lead: not clear

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: recruited patients screened at admission for risk of adverse hospital outcome and to minimise inappropriate referrals to discharge planning; discharge planning implemented on day 3 of hospital admission

Education: not reported

Implementation of the discharge plan: referred to a social worker, assessment of support systems, living situation, finances and areas of need. Plans were implemented with measurable goals.

General discharge plan

Not reported

Could be referred for discharge planning, usually on day 9 of admission

Farris 2014

Discharge planning lead: pharmacist case manager

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: day 2 or 3 of admission

Education: medication counselling to improve medication adherence, every 2 to 3 days, and discharge counselling

Implementation of the discharge plan: a discharge medication list and counselling on goals of treatment, medication and barriers to adherence. Primary care provider and community pharmacist received a copy of the discharge plan within 24 hours of discharge and usually within 6 hours, it included the discharge medication list, plans for dosage adjustments and monitoring, recommendations for preventing adverse drug events, with patient specific concerns such as adherence or cost issues highlighted.

To improve medication related outcomes during transitions of care

Telephone call 3 to 5 days post‐discharge

Usual care was medication reconciliation at admission according to hospital policy, nurse discharge counseling and a discharge medication list for patients. The usual care discharge summary was transcribed and received in the mail by the primary

Gillespie 2009

Discharge planning lead: clinical pharmicists

Timing of involvement with the discharge plan: at admission

Education: education provided during the hospital admission, a review of medicines and discharge counselling

Implementation of discharge plan: medicine review, patient provided with a copy of the discharge letter. The pharmacist provided a comprehensive account of all changes in drug therapy during the hospital stay, including the rationale behind medication decisions, monitoring needs, and expected therapeutic goals. Drug related problems were listed with suggested actions. The physician responsible for the patient on the ward was required to approve the contents of the pharmacist’s discharge letter before it was sent to the patient’s general practitioner with the original discharge letter. The pharmacists’ discharge letters were not given to the patients.

To reduce drug related problems, increase patient safety and reduce use of hospital care in people aged 80 years and older

Telephone call 2 months post‐discharge to assess the management of medicines

Standard care from nurse or physician, pharmacist not involved

Goldman 2014

Discharge planning lead: registered nurse, included native Spanish and Chinese speakers

Timing of involvement with the discharge plan: patients who had been admitted in the previous 24 hours were seen by the discharge planning registered nurse

Education: disease‐specific patient education that included symptom recognition, medication reconciliation and strategies to navigate the health system. Motivational interviewing techniques and coaching to promote patient engagement. A study RN supplemented verbal instructions with language‐concordant written materials (30). A study RN reinforced teaching using the “teach‐back” method to ensure comprehension (31)

Implementation of discharge plan: the discharge planning study registered nurse met with the patient and contacted the patients’ primary care providers to supply the inpatient physicians’ contact information.

A discharge planning nurse led intervention to facilitate the transition from hospital to home

Study nurse practitioners visited patients within 24 hours of discharge, and called patients on days 1 to 3 and 6 to 10 after discharge.

The bedside RN's review of the discharge instructions, received by all patients. If requested by the medical team, the hospital pharmacy provided a 10 day medication supply and a social worker assisted with discharge. The admitting team was responsible for liaising with the patients' PC

Harrison 2002

Discharge planning lead: nurse led

Timing of involvement with the discharge plan: within 24 hours of

Education: a structured evidence based protocol for counselling and education to support heart failure self‐management

Implementation of discharge plan: comprehensive discharge plan, hospital and community nurse liaison, standard discharge planning + a comprehensive program that added support to improve the transfer from hospital to home. Hospital and community nurses met to focus on the ‘outreach’ from the hospital and ‘in‐reach’ from the community during the transition. An inter‐sectoral continuity of care framework was used to identify gaps to specifically address 3 major aspects of a hospital‐to‐home transition: (1) supportive care for self‐management; (2) linkages between hospital and home nurses and patients; and (3) the balance of care between the patient and family and professional providers

A nurse led discharge plan to improve the transition between hospital settings.

Telephone call within 24 hours of discharge

Usual home care visits, available to intervention group

Hendriksen 1990

Discharge planning lead: project nurse

Timing of involvement with the discharge plan: at the time of admission

Education: health condition and discharge arrangements

Implementation of the discharge plan: patients had daily contact with the project nurse who discussed their illness with them and discharge arrangements; liaison between hospital and primary care staff.

A co‐ordinated transfer from hospital to home for older people.

Project nurse, a maximum of two visits after discharge

Usual care

Jack 2009

Discharge planning lead: nurse discharge advocate (DA)

Timing of involvement with the discharge plan:

Education: the DA used scripts from the training manual to review the contents of an after hospital care plan with the patient.

Implementation of the discharge plan: with information collected from the hospital team and the participant, the DA created the after‐hospital care plan (AHCP), which contained medical provider contact information, dates for appointments and tests, an appointment calendar, a colour‐coded medication schedule, a list of tests with pending results at discharge, an illustrated description of the discharge diagnosis, and information about what to do if a problem arises. Information for the AHCP was manually entered into a Microsoft Word template, printed, and spiral‐bound to produce an individualised, colour booklet. On the day of discharge the AHCP and discharge summary were faxed to the primary care provider.

Reengineered hospital discharge to minimize hospital utilisation after discharge.

A clinical pharmacist telephoned the participants 2‐4 days after the index discharge to reinforce the discharge plan by using a scripted interview. The pharmacist had access to the AHCP and hospital discharge summary and, over several days, made at least 3 attempts to reach each participant. The pharmacist asked participants to bring their medications to the telephone to review them and address medication‐related problems; the pharmacist communicated these issues to the PCP or DA

Usual care.

Kennedy 1987

Discharge planning lead: gerontology clinical nurse specialist (GCNS)

Timing of involvement with the discharge plan: during the hospital admission

Education: focused on explaining and clarifying the discharge plan

Implementation of the discharge plan: a comprehensive discharge planning protocol (CDPP) was developed for use by the Gerontological Clinical Nurse Specialist (GCNS). Components of the assessment included: health status, orientation level, knowledge and perception of health status, resource use pattern, functional status, skill level, motivation level, and sociodemographic data. The patient's level of dependency was measured using the Long‐Term Care Information System (LTCIS). The GCNS met with the patient and family, physician, and other health care providers to identify resources and support networks for the patient postdischarge. A summary of the assessment information and potential care needs were entered in the progress notes of the patient's chart.The GCNS assisted in the coordination of services.

A comprehensive discharge planning protocol to improve the health delivered to older people in hospital.

One follow‐up visit to assess the arrangements and care delivered.

Discharge arranged by the primary nurse.

Kripalani 2012

Discharge planning lead: a pharmacist

TIming of patient involvement with the discharge plan: at enrolment to the study during a patients admission to hospital

Education: one or two counselling sessions to the patient by the pharmacist, that accounted for the patient's health literacy and aimed to support adherence and minimize adverse effects. Pharmacists used 'teach‐back' to confirm understanding.

Implementation of the discharge plan: pharmacist assisted medication reconciliation, tailored inpatient counselling, provision of low‐literacy adherence aids. The pharmacists communicated with the treating physicians to resolve any clinically relevant, unintentional medication discrepancies.

A tailored intervention to reduce medication errors at and after hospital discharge.

Telephone follow‐up after discharge by a research coordinator, follow‐up call by a pharmacist to address any issues in collaboration with the treating inpatient and outpatient physicians.

Medicine reconciliation and discharge counselling

Lainscak 2013

Discharge planning lead: a discharge co‐ordinator

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: within 48 hours of admission to hospital

Education: yes

Implementation of the discharge plan: the discharge coordinator assessed the patient situation and home care needs to identify any problems and specific needs. Patients and caregivers were actively involved in the discharge planning process, which was communicated and discussed with community care/home care nurse, general practitioner, social care worker, physiotherapist, and other providers of home services as appropriate to provide continuity of care and care coordination across different levels of health care.

To coordinate discharge from hospital to post‐discharge care to reduce hospitalizations.

Discharge coordinator called the patient 48 hours after discharge to check adjustment to home environment and additional needs, phone calls continued up to 7 to 10 days after discharge when a home visit was scheduled.

Usual care, routine patient education with written and verbal information about COPD, supervise inhaler use, respiratory physiotherapy as indicated, and disease related communication between medical staff with patients and their caregivers

Laramee 2003

Discharge planning lead: heart failure nurse case manager

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: during admission

Education: a 15 page booked on heart failure to support self‐management. Individualised and family education.

Implementation of the discharge plan: early discharge planning and coordination of care; facilitated communication between the hospital team and the patient, involved the patient and family in developing a care plan; review and monitoring of medicines and appropriate recommendations.

Hospital based nurse led case management to co‐ordinate care and reduce hospital utilization.

12 weeks of telephone follow‐up

Usual care

Legrain 2011

Discharge planning lead: a dedicated geriatrician

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: during admission

Education: education on self‐management of disease

Implementation of the discharge plan: comprehensive chronic medication review according to geriatric prescribing principles, and detailed transition‐of care‐communication with outpatient health professionals.

To co‐ordinate a patient centred mult‐modal comprehensive discharge plan for older people to reduce preventable readmission, depression and protein‐energy malnutrition.

Not reported

Usual care in an acute geriatrician unit

Lin 2009

Discharge planning lead: nurse led

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: during the hospital admission

Education: not reported

Implementation of the discharge plan: structured assessment of discharge planning needs, systematic individualised nursing instruction based on the patient’s individual needs, monitoring services and coordinated resources and arranging of referral placements for each patient.

To improve discharge planning to meet care needs after discharge for older people admitted to hospital with a hip fracture.

Two home visits post‐discharge to provide support and consultation

Unstructured discharge instructions without following a standardised procedure

Lindpainter 2013

Discharge planning lead: nurse

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: during admission

Education: yes

Implementation of the discharge plan: included discharge diagnoses, medication, and plans for follow‐up and home care sent on the day of discharge by to the primary care physician and the local visiting nurse organization. This discharge fax supplemented the hospital discharge summary generated as usual by the staff physician in both the intervention and control groups.

To co‐ordinate care to reduce adverse events and cost

Telephone access via a pager and home visit if required

Standard discharge fax to primary care

Lisby 2019

Discharge planning lead: nurse

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan:

Education: included assessment of patients' understanding of their discharge recommendations that included medicines

Implementation of the discharge plan: an assessment of the patient’s overall situation and requirement for additional healthcare and help, a review of medicines, their comprehension of discharge recommendations, a simple discharge letter targeting the individual patient’s health literacy and a follow‐up telephone call.

To co‐ordinate care to increase post‐discharge safety and reduce readmissions.

Two week post‐discharge telephone call

Standard discharge letter provided to the primary care physician, the patient sometimes received a copy.

Moher 1992

Discharge planning lead: a nurse

Timing of patient involvement with the discharge plan: shortly after admission to clinical unit.

Education: not reported

Implementation of the discharge plan: by a nurse co‐ordinator.

To co‐ordinate and facilitate a discharge plan, tests and procedures, liaise with members of the clinical team and to collect and collate patient information.

Not included

Standard care

Naji 1999

Discharge planning lead: Psychiatrist

Time of patient involvement with the discharge plan: ‐
Education: ‐

Implementation of the discharge plan: psychiatrist telephoned GP to discuss patient and make an appointment for the patient to see the GP within 1 week following discharge. A copy of the discharge summary was given to the patient to hand‐deliver to the GP and a copy was posted to the GP.

To optimise communication between secondary and primary care at the time of discharge.

Not included

A standard discharge summary

Naughton 1994

Discharge planning lead: nurse

Timing of discharge plan: at admission

Education: yes

Implementation of discharge plan: implemented at the time of admission; team meetings with the GEM and nurse specialist and physical therapist took place twice a week to discuss patients' medical condition, living situation, family and social supports, and patient and family's understanding of the patient's condition. The social worker was responsible for identifying and co‐ordinating community resources and ensuring the post‐discharge care was in place at the time of discharge and 2 weeks later. The nurse specialist co‐ordinated the transfer to home healthcare. Patients who did not have a primary care provider received outpatient care at the hospital.

To build on geriatric management through a care plan that included co‐ordination of post‐discharge care.

Routine follow‐up that was not part of the discharge plan

Standard care

Naylor 1994

Discharge planning lead: nurse

Timing of discharge plan: at admission

Education: yes

Implementation of discharge plan: 1) comprehensive initial and ongoing assessment of the discharge planning needs of the elderly patient and his or her caregiver; 2) development of a discharge plan in collaboration with the patient, caregiver, physician, primary nurse, and other members of the health care team; 3) validation of patient and caregiver education; 4) coordination of the discharge plan throughout the patient's hospitalization and through 2 weeks after discharge; 5) interdisciplinary communication regarding discharge status; and 6) ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the discharge plan.

Timely discharge and facilitate post‐discharge care.

Telephone advise was available for up to two weeks after discharge and the nurse initiated two telephone calls during the first 2 weeks after discharge.

Routine discharge plan that was used for all patients

Nazareth 2001

Discharge planning lead: hospital and community pharmacists offered an integrated discharge plan.

Timing of discharge plan: not clear.

Education: the hospital pharmacist provided patients with information on their medicines and liaised with their carers and community professionals when appropriate, counselled patients and their caregivers on the purpose of the medicines, doses and how to dispose of excess medicines and provided carers and health professionals with a copy of the discharge plan.

Implementation of discharge plan: Medication review and counselling, the hospital pharmacist assessed the patient's medication and the ability of the patient to manage their medication, provided medicine aids such as large print and special labels.

Co‐ordination by hospital and community pharmacists to improve care of older people who are prescribed four or more drugs and optimise communication between primary and secondary care professionals

A pharmacist visited the patient at home two weeks after discharge from hospital to review medicines.

Standard discharge letter with diagnosis, investigations and medication, this did not include a review of medicines or a post‐discharge follow‐up visit.

Nguyen 2018

Discharge planning lead: hospital pharmacist

TIming of discharge plan: one week before discharge

Education: advise on their condition (acute coronary syndrome), risk factors, prevention; experience of medicines, medication aids, teaching back and correcting misunderstandings.

Implementation of the discharge plan: Medication review and counselling, a multi‐faceted intervention of two counselling sessions to assess patients knowledge of their condition (acute coronary syndrome).

A multi‐faceted intervention to enhance medication adherence, and reduce mortality and hospital readmission

Two weeks after discharge a 30 minute telephone call by a pharmacist to assess general and medication issues, provide tailored advice, teaching back and correcting misunderstanding

Standard care

Parfrey 1994

Discharge planning lead: member of the multi‐disciplinary team

Timing of discharge plan: at admission

Education:

Implementaiton of the discharge plan: a 1‐page, 65‐item questionnaire was used to identify patients for early discharge planning.

Early identification of patients for dicharge planning to reduce hospital length of stay

No

Standard discharge arrangements

Preen 2005

Discharge planning lead: multidisciplinary discharge care planning with primary care providers

Timing of discharge plan: 24‐48 hours prior to discharge

Education: patients were involved in identifying problems and goals

Implementation of the discharge plan: problems and goals identified with the patient and carer, community service providers were identified who met patient needs and who were accessible.The discharge plan was faxed to the GP and all service providers identified on the care plan.

A discharge care planning model to provide quality discharge arrangements and facilitate continuity of care and communication between the hospital and primary care physician

GP scheduled a consultation (within 7 d postdischarge) for patient review

Standard care that included a discharge summary provide to the patients and GP

Rich 1993

Discharge planning lead: cardiovascular specialist nurse

Timing of discharge plan: early in the hospital admission

Education: education about heart failure, treatment plan, diet and medicines using a 5 page guide

Implementation of the discharge plan: review of medicines with recommendations to support compliance and reduce adverse effects, early discharge planning, review by social worker and home care team. The discharge plan was sent to the home care division.

To facilitate discharge planning and ease the transition from hospital to home

Home care visited the patient at home within 48 hours of discharge and two more times during the first week, and then at regular intervals.

Standard care, without the education materials or formal medication review

Rich 1995

Discharge planning lead: cardiovascular specialist nurse

Timing of discharge plan: early in the hospital admission

Education: education about heart failure, treatment plan, diet and medicines using a 5 page guide

Implementation of the discharge plan: review of medicines with recommendations to support compliance and reduce adverse effects, early discharge planning, review by social worker and home care team. The discharge plan was sent to the home care division.

Reduce the risk of readmission

Home care visited the patient at home within 48 hours of discharge and two more times during the first week, and then at regular intervals.

Standard care, without the education materials or formal medication review

Shaw 2000

Discharge planning lead: hospital pharmacist

Timing of discharge plan: during hospital admission

Education: patient knowledge of illness and medicines was assessed by a questionnaire, and information was provided

Implementation of the discharge plan: Medication review and counselling, a checklist was used to identify needs, details of the treatment plan were provided and provided to the patient's community pharmacist

To identify medication problems experienced by patients

Domiciliary visits at 1, 4 and 12 weeks to assess knowledge and continuing care needs.

Standard care

Sulch 2000

Discharge planning lead: senior nurse with multi‐disciplinary team

Timing of the discharge plan: day 5 to 6 of hospital admission

Education: patient and carer education about the care plan and rehabilitation process, medicines, prognosis and related health problems

Implementation of the discharge plan: discharge plan was revised during the hospital stay, the plan included discharge options and a date of discharge

An integrated care pathway to reduce hospital length of stay in people with a stroke and having specialist rehabilitation

Routine follow‐up that was not part of the discharge plan

Standard multi‐disciplinary care

Weinberger 1996

Discharge planning lead: primary care nurse

Timing of discharge plan: three days before discharge

Education: patients were provided with educational material.

Implementation of the discharge plan: assessment of post‐discharge needs, listed medical problems, assigned the patient to a primary care physician.

Targetted people with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure who were at risk of readmission. Aimed to reduce readmission by strengthening the planning of post‐discharge care

Primary nurse telephoned the patient 2 days after discharge, patient given an appointment to attend the primary care clinic within one week of discharge.

Standard care, did not have access to primary care nurse and did not receive supplemental education or assessment of needs beyond usual care.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Intervention characteristics
Comparison 1. Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Hospital length of stay ‐ older people with a medical condition Show forest plot

11

2113

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.73 [‐1.33, ‐0.12]

1.2 Hospital length of stay ‐ older people following surgery Show forest plot

2

184

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐1.23, 1.11]

1.3 Hospital length of stay ‐ studies recruiting people with a mix of conditions Show forest plot

3

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Effect of discharge planning on hospital length of stay
Comparison 2. Effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Average follow‐up, 3 months from discharge for the majority of studies Show forest plot

17

5126

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.81, 0.97]

2.1.1 Unscheduled readmission for participants with a medical condition

17

5126

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.81, 0.97]

2.2 Hospital readmission rates at various follow‐up times Show forest plot

18

Other data

No numeric data

2.2.1 Participants with a medical condition

14

Other data

No numeric data

2.2.2 Participants with medical or surgical condition

1

Other data

No numeric data

2.2.3 Participants recruited following surgery

2

Other data

No numeric data

2.2.4 Participants with a mental health diagnosis

2

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Effect of discharge planning on unscheduled readmission rates
Comparison 3. Effect of discharge planning on health status

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Mortality at 3 to 9 months Show forest plot

8

2721

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.85, 1.29]

3.1.1 Older people with a medical condition

8

2721

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.85, 1.29]

3.2 Mortality for trials recruiting participants with a medical condition and those recovering from surgery Show forest plot

1

Other data

No numeric data

3.3 Patient‐reported outcomes: a medical condition Show forest plot

15

Other data

No numeric data

3.3.1 Patients with a medical condition

12

Other data

No numeric data

3.3.2 Patient report outcomes following surgery

2

Other data

No numeric data

3.3.3 Patients with a medical or surgical condition

1

Other data

No numeric data

3.3.4 Patients with a mental health diagnosis

1

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Effect of discharge planning on health status
Comparison 4. Effect of discharge planning on satisfaction with care process

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Satisfaction Show forest plot

8

Other data

No numeric data

4.1.1 Patient and care givers' satisfaction

7

Other data

No numeric data

4.1.2 Professional's satisfaction

2

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Effect of discharge planning on satisfaction with care process
Comparison 5. Effect of discharge planning on hospital resource use and cost

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

5.1 Hospital cost Show forest plot

6

Other data

No numeric data

5.1.1 Patients with a medical condition

6

Other data

No numeric data

5.1.2 Patients with a surgical condition

1

Other data

No numeric data

5.2 Primary and community care resource use and cost Show forest plot

6

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Effect of discharge planning on hospital resource use and cost
Comparison 6. Effect of discharge planning on medication use

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

6.1 Problems with medication after discharge from hospital Show forest plot

6

Other data

No numeric data

6.2 Adherence to medicines Show forest plot

4

Other data

No numeric data

6.3 Knowledge about medicines Show forest plot

3

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Effect of discharge planning on medication use
Comparison 7. Effect of discharge planning on place of discharge

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

7.1 Discharge destination for people with a medical condition Show forest plot

7

Other data

No numeric data

7.2 Discharge destination, studies recruiting people with a medical or surgical condition Show forest plot

2

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Effect of discharge planning on place of discharge