Care coordination has shown inconsistent results as a mechanism to reduce hospital readmission and postdischarge emergency department (ED) visit rates. OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of a supplemental care bundle targeting high-risk elderly inpatients implemented by hospital-based staff compared to usual care on a composite outcome of hospital readmission and/or ED visitation at 30 and 60 days following discharge. PATIENTS/METHODS:Randomized controlled pilot study in 41 medical inpatients predisposed to unplanned readmission or postdischarge ED visitation, conducted at Baylor University Medical Center. The intervention group care bundle consisted of medication counseling/reconciliation by a clinical pharmacist (CP), condition specific education/enhanced discharge planning by a care coordinator (CC), and phone follow-up. RESULTS:Groups had similar baseline characteristics. Intervention group readmission/ED visit rates were reduced at 30 days compared to the control group (10.0% versus 38.1%, P ¼ 0.04), but not at 60 days (30.0% versus 42.9%, P ¼ 0.52). For those patients who had a readmission/postdischarge ED visit, the time interval to this event was longer in the intervention group compared to usual care (36.2 versus 15.7 days, P ¼ 0.05). Study power was insufficient to reliably compare the effects of the intervention on lengths of index hospital stay between groups. KEYWORDS: care coordination, discharge planning, elderly care, hospital readmission, transitional care. CONCLUSIONS:Elderly patients (aged 65 years and older) consume a disproportionate amount of acute health care resources, composing up to 20% of emergency department (ED) visits, 1,2 having a 2-fold to 5-fold increase in likelihood of hospital admission, 1 and frequently incurring lengths of hospital stay (LOS) approximately 15% higher than the national averages. 3 In addition, they are at increased risk for hospital readmission in the 90-day interval following hospital discharge. 1,4,5 Specific risk factors for readmission include age above 80 years, discharge within the previous 30 days, the presence of 3 or more comorbid diagnoses, use of 5 or more prescription medications, difficulty with at least 1 activity of daily living (ADL), and lack of discharge education. 6 These risk factors can translate into adverse drug events, 7-9 exacerbations of chronic diseases, 10 or functional decline 4,5 that can trigger ED visits or hospital readmission.Hospital-based care coordination-defined as a multidisciplinary interaction between inpatients and providers that focuses on education, communication, and discharge planning with the primary aim of improving outcomes-has demonstrated inconsistent results as a mechanism to reduce LOS, postdischarge ED visits, or hospital readmission rates. While disease-specific care coordination programs for congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been effective in reducing rehospitalization rates, 10-15 the benefits of comprehensive care coordination for elderly general medical inpatients wit...

Purpose Investigate safety and tolerability of adrecizumab, a humanized monoclonal adrenomedullin antibody, in septic shock patients with high adrenomedullin. Methods Phase-2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled biomarker-guided trial with a single infusion of adrecizumab (2 or 4 mg/kg b.w.) compared to placebo. Patients with adrenomedullin above 70 pg/mL, < 12 h of vasopressor start for septic shock were eligible. Randomization was 1:1:2. Primary safety (90-day mortality, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE)) and tolerability (drug interruption, hemodynamics) endpoints were recorded. Efficacy endpoints included the Sepsis Support Index (SSI, reflecting ventilator- and shock-free days alive), change in Sequential-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 28-day mortality. Results 301 patients were enrolled (median time of 8.5 h after vasopressor start). Adrecizumab was well tolerated (one interruption, no hemodynamic alteration) with no differences in frequency and severity in TEAEs between treatment arms (TEAE of grade 3 or higher: 70.5% in the adrecizumab group and 71.1% in the placebo group) nor in 90-day mortality. Difference in change in SSI between adrecizumab and placebo was 0.72 (CI −1.93–0.49, p = 0.24). Among various secondary endpoints, delta SOFA score (defined as maximum versus minimum SOFA) was more pronounced in the adrecizumab combined group compared to placebo [difference at 0.76 (95% CI 0.18–1.35); p = 0.007]. 28-day mortality in the adrecizumab group was 23.9% and 27.7% in placebo with a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.53–1.31, log-rank p = 0.44). Conclusions Overall, we successfully completed a randomized trial evaluating selecting patients for enrolment who had a disease-related biomarker. There were no overt signals of harm with using two doses of the adrenomedullin antibody adrecizumab; however, further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm efficacy and safety of this agent in septic shock patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06537-5.

Prognostic and epidemiological, level III; Therapeutic/Case Management, level IV.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

At a time of significant upheaval in American health policy, maintaining a focus on a "North Star" is critical. For implementation science, this star is the knowledge base on how to optimally disseminate evidence related to health and health care, how to implement interventions to improve care within the many settings where people receive health care and make health-related decisions, and how to improve the health of the global population. To that end, the end of 2016 brought over 1100 engaged and activated "disciples of D & I" to Washington, DC for the 9 th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health. Once again, the accompanying abstracts in this issue demonstrate the breadth, depth and vigor of this continually expanding and evolving subset of health research. During three dynamic plenaries with rows and rows of filled seats and packed concurrent sessions presenters and attendees shared findings, raised methodologic and other challenges, and discussed future priorities, trends, and next steps for this community of research. For the third year in a row, we were buoyed by a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from others committed to implementation science: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The multidisciplinary program planning committee informed the development of the key themes for the conference, identified the plenary sessions topics and speakers, established track leads to manage the review process for concurrent panels, papers, and posters, and convened a scientific advisory panel to advise on the overall conference, thus ensuring a robust, inclusive, and rigorous process. Together, the opening keynote address and the three plenary panel sessions set a tone of innovation and dialogue, raised critical issues, surfaced different perspectives, and ensured that follow on lunchtime and hallway discussions delved deeper into thorny challenges facing the field. Roy Rosin, Chief Innovation Officer for the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, introduced the audience to a range of methods for rapid testing, innovation in healthcare delivery, and lessons learned from other industries to maximize potential of new practices to be scaled-up. Each of the three plenary panels presented a general discussion on a high priority challenge for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research. A panel on the balance between intervention and implementation fidelity and local adaptation touched on the very real dynamic that is playing out in communities across this country as policy and payment changes are driving providers and others to seek new ways to solve the challenges in their particular contexts. A panel on the longerterm decisions around sustainment or de-implementation of interventions could not be more timely given the "im...