Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 1;8(1):222.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-01180-3.

Improving the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of the 'Your Care Needs You' intervention versus usual care

Affiliations

Improving the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of the 'Your Care Needs You' intervention versus usual care

Ruth Baxter et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Abstract

Background: The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention aims to increase the safety and experience of transitions for older people through greater patient involvement during the hospital stay.

Methods: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted on NHS inpatient wards (clusters) where ≥ 40% of patients were routinely ≥ 75 years. Wards were randomised to YCNY or usual care using an unequal allocation ratio (3:2). We aimed to recruit up to 20 patients per ward. Follow-up included routine data collection and questionnaires at 5-, 30-, and 90-days post-discharge. Eligible patients were ≥ 75 years, discharged home, stayed overnight on participating wards, and could read and understand English. The trial assessed the feasibility of delivering YCNY and the trial methodology through recruitment rates, outcome completion rates, and a qualitative evaluation. The accuracy of using routinely coded data for the primary outcome in the definitive trial was assessed by extracting discharge information for up to ten nonindividual consenting patients per ward.

Results: Ten wards were randomised (6 intervention, 4 control). One ward withdrew, and two wards were unable to deliver the intervention. Seven-hundred twenty-one patients were successfully screened, and 161 were recruited (95 intervention, 66 control). The patient post-discharge attrition rate was 17.4% (n = 28). Primary outcome data were gathered for 91.9% of participants with 75.2% and 59.0% providing secondary outcome data at 5 and 30 days post-discharge respectively. Item completion within questionnaires was generally high. Post-discharge follow-up was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting 90-day response rates (16.8%). Data from 88 nonindividual consenting patients identified an error rate of 15% when using routinely coded data for the primary outcome. No unexpected serious adverse events were identified. Most patients viewed YCNY favourably. Staff agreed with it in principle, but ward pressures and organisational contexts hampered implementation. There was a need to sustain engagement, provide clarity on roles and responsibilities, and account for fluctuations in patients' health, capacity, and preferences.

Conclusions: If implementation challenges can be overcome, YCNY represents a step towards involving older people as partners in their care to improve the safety and experience of their transitions from hospital to home.

Trial registration: ISRCTN: 51154948.

Keywords: Care of older people; Cluster randomised controlled trial; Complex intervention; Feasibility trial; Hospital discharge; Patient experience; Patient safety; Transitions of care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT style flow diagram showing ward and participant flow through the study

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. NHS Digital. Emergency readmissions to hospital within 30 days of discharge: indirectly standardised percent trends broken down by age bands and sex. 2022. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/com.... Cited 2022 June 13.
    1. Auerbach AD, Kripalani S, Vasilevskis EE, Sehgal N, Lindenauer PK, Metlay JP, et al. Preventability and causes of readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(4):484–493. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7863. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Walraven C, Bennett C, Jennings A, Austin PC, AJ. F. Proportion of hospital readmissions deemed avoidable: a systematic review. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183(7):E391–E402. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101860. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Walraven C, Jennings A, Forster AJ. A meta-analysis of hospital 30-day avoidable readmission rates. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(6):211–218. - PubMed
    1. Yam CH, Wong EL, Chan FW, Wong FY, Leung MC, Yeoh EK. Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmissions: a review of the literature. Hong Kong Med J. 2010;16(5):383–389. - PubMed