|
Incorporating Patient Concerns Into Discharge Plans: Evaluation of a
Patient-Generated Checklist
|
|
Karen A. Grimmer, PhD1
Lauren R. Dryden, BPhty (Hons).1 Runthip Puntumetakul,
MAppSci.1 Alexandra F. Young1 Michelle
Guerin, BPhty (Hons).1 Yamini Deenadayalan, MAppSci.1
John R. Moss, MSocSci.2
1. Centre for Allied Health
Evidence, University of South Australia
2. Department of Public Health, The University of Adelaide
|
Citation:
Grimmer, K., Dryden, L., Puntumetakul, R., Young, A., Guerin, M.,
Deenadayalan, Y., Moss, J. Incorporating patient concerns into discharge
plans: Evaluation of a patient-generated checklist. The Internet Journal
of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. Apr 2006, Volume 4 Number 2.
|
Abstract
Background: This paper reports on the effectiveness of a checklist
that assists patients to transition safely and sustainably from
hospital to home. Methods: Medical wards in three tertiary
public hospitals in metropolitan Adelaide provided subjects during
2004. Eligible patients were English-literate and aged at least 60
years, provided written informed consent and had an unplanned hospital
admission for a new medical condition. Data was excluded post-hoc if
subjects had another hospital readmission for the same condition
within seven days of discharge. The study had a quasi-experimental
study design in which each hospital acted as its own control. In each
hospital, the first half of the study period measured the outcome of
usual discharge planning practices (control phase), and the second
half of the study period measured the outcome following administration
of the checklist (intervention). Quantitative and qualitative
(grounded theory) evaluation methods were used. Results: 464
potentially eligible patients were approached and 317 (63.3%)
consented to participate (210 control and 107 intervention subjects).
Post-hoc exclusion and loss to follow-up reflected 60% (control) and
42% (intervention) subjects. Unplanned readmission to hospital (post
hoc exclusion) reflected 21% control and 39% intervention phase
subjects. A key reason for loss to follow-up was inability to contact
subjects seven days after discharge (29% control, 16% intervention
phases). Complete outcome data was collected from 148 subjects. For
patients with family/ friends who visited them in hospital, the
checklist provided the opportunity for joint discussion and
decision-making prior to discharge about daily living activities.
These activities were often additional to formal discharge plans. The
short duration of hospital admission, and generally poor health
precluded many patients without family/ friends from obtaining maximum
benefit from the checklist. Conclusion: The checklist improved
patients’ preparedness for discharge, particularly when family/
friends were involved.
|
|
Keywords
and terms: discharge planning,
patient-centred, patient centered, discharge checklist,
quasi-experimental study |
|