Comprehensive discharge follow-up in patients’ homes by GPs and district nurses of elderly patients

Abstract

Objectives. Many hospital admissions are due to inappropriate medical treatment, and discharge of fragile elderly patients involves a high risk of readmission. The present study aimed to assess whether a follow-up programme undertaken by GPs and district nurses could improve the quality of the medical treatment and reduce the risk of readmission of elderly newly discharged patients. Design and setting. The patients were randomized to either an intervention group receiving a structured home visit by the GP and the district nurse one week after discharge followed by two contacts after three and eight weeks, or to a control group receiving the usual care. Patients. A total of 331 patients aged 78+ years discharged from Glostrup Hospital, Denmark, were included. Main outcome measures. Readmission rate within 26 weeks after discharge among all randomized patients. Control of medication, evaluated 12 weeks after discharge on 293 (89%) of the patients by an interview at home and by a questionnaire to the GP. Results. Control-group patients were more likely to be readmitted than intervention-group patients (52% v 40%; p = 0.03). In the intervention group, the proportions of patients who used prescribed medication of which the GP was unaware (48% vs. 34%; p = 0.02) and who did not take the medication prescribed by the GP (39% vs. 28%; p = 0.05) were smaller than in the control group. Conclusion. The intervention shows a possible framework securing the follow-up on elderly patients after discharge by reducing the readmission risk and improving medication control.

Key Words::

• Discharge
• elderly
• family practice
• home visit
• medication
• primary care
• readmission

Authors’ contribution

LR: Conception, design, interpretation, and drafting. HNJ: Conception, design, analysis, interpretation, and revising. FRH: Conception, design, interpretation, and revising. AVH: Analysis. AHA: Analysis, interpretation, and approval. AN: Conception, design, interpretation, and revising. JK: Analysis, interpretation, and approval.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following: Eva Jepsen for inclusion and data collection; Karin Stadsgaard for conception and design; Mette Gislum for statistics; Kristine Skovgaard Bossen and Susanne Wilms for data collection; Morten Freil, Rikke Gut, and Stine Schulze for questionnaires and focus-group interview; Anders Rytter Bockhahn, Dea Seidenfaden, and Mette Lehmann Andersen for data collection; Frede Olesen for writing assistance.

Funding

The study was funded by the Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, the National Board of Health, the Health Insurance Foundation, the General Practitioners’ Foundation for Development of General Practice (PLU) , the Copenhagen County Health Department, Copenhagen County Quality Committee for General Practice, Copenhagen County Committee on Disease Prevention, and Copenhagen County Health Insurance.

All the authors state their independence from funders. There were no sponsors.