Evaluation of a Primary Care-Based Post-Discharge Phone Call Program: Keeping the Primary Care Practice at the Center of Post-hospitalization Care Transition

Tang, Ning; Fujimoto, Jeffrey; Karliner, Leah

doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2942-6

Cited by 32 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The selected studies included participants from the following areas: surgical (Clari et al, ; Li et al, ; Szöts et al, ; Zhang et al, , ), medical/surgical (Miller & Schaper, ; Tang et al, ), accident trauma (Gaines‐Dillard, 2015), maternity (Hannan, 2013), and pulmonary and infectious diseases (Lavesen et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is unclear whether nurses in Li et al’s () study used a guide and did not mention it, or no guide was used. Guides ranged from a checklist (Szöts et al, ), to scripted questions (Gaines‐Dillard, 2015; Tang et al, ), structured questionnaires (Miller & Schaper, ; Zhang et al, ) and manuals or protocols (Clari et al, ; Hannan, 2013; Lavesen et al, ; Zhang et al, ). TFU calls consisted of questions to assess the patient's health, nutrition, mobility, pain, symptoms, self‐care ability, activities of daily life, homecare, medication and follow‐up appointments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up calls: A mixed study systematic review

Woods

Jones

O’Shea

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To explore the quantitative and qualitative literature on the impact of nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up (TFU) call interventions on patient outcomes. Background Adverse patient outcomes such as postdischarge problems, premature contact with health systems, inability to self‐manage conditions and hospital readmissions all have an impact on the health and well‐being, and satisfaction of patients as well as a financial impact on healthcare systems. Design A mixed‐study systematic review. Review methods A systematic search of CINAHL, Ebsco, PubMed, Quest and Cinch‐Health databases was undertaken using the key terms “nurs*,” “nurse‐led,” “nurse initiated,” “discharge,” “hospital,” “telephone,” “follow‐up” and “telephone follow‐up” to identify relevant original peer‐reviewed studies published between 2010–2016. Ten articles were selected for inclusion. The selected papers were critically appraised. A sequential explanatory approach with a convergent synthesis was used to report findings following PRISMA guidelines. Results The findings demonstrate that nurse‐led TFU interventions have the potential to improve patient outcomes. The studies suggest patient satisfaction with TFU is one of the strongest positive outcomes from the interventions. However, the results do not support improvement in patient readmission or mortality. Conclusions Of the 10 studies reviewed, only two were methodologically strong limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from the current research on this topic. Telephone follow‐up interventions improve patient satisfaction and have the potential to meet patient information and communication needs, improve self‐management and follow‐up appointment attendance and reduce postdischarge problems. Further research is required to explore patients’ perceptions of the most useful content of TFU calls, the efficacy of TFU calls and nurses’ perceptions and experiences of conducting TFU interventions. Relevance to clinical practice When conducted by a nurse, these interventions have the potential to enhance postdischarge care to patients and meet care needs. Patients perceive TFU as acceptable and are satisfied with this form of postdischarge care.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up calls: A mixed study systematic review

Woods

Jones

O’Shea

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…29 SNF staff may already call patients for satisfaction surveys and to answer any questions that may have arisen. Home health nursing may contact patients during this time to establish visit times.…”

Section: Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

SGIM-AMDA-AGS Consensus Best Practice Recommendations for Transitioning Patients’ Healthcare from Skilled Nursing Facilities to the Community

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assembled a cross-cutting team of experts representing primary care physicians (PCPs), home care physicians, physicians who see patients in skilled nursing facilities (SNF physicians), skilled nursing facility medical directors, human factors engineers, transitional care researchers, geriatricians, internists, family practitioners, and three major organizations: AMDA, SGIM, and AGS. This work was sponsored through a grant from the Association of Subspecialty Physicians (ASP). Members of the team mapped the process of discharging patients from a skilled nursing facility into the community and subsequent care of their outpatient PCP. Four areas of process improvement were identified, building on the prior work of the AMDA Transitions of Care Committee and the experiences of the team members. The team identified issues and developed best practices perceived as feasible for SNF physician and PCP practices to accomplish. The goal of these consensus-based recommended best practices is to provide a safe and high-quality transition for patients moving between the care of their SNF physician and PCP.

show abstract

“…With so many patients uninformed, it is unsurprising that hospital readmission rates show few signs of decline. One answer may be interventions such as those described in the paper by Tang et al, 4 where nurses called recently discharged patients to probe for new problems and encourage outpatient follow-up. Although many new problems were documented and follow-up rates improved, readmission rates did not differ among patients who actually spoke with study nurses and those who did not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician Incomes in the Twenty-first Century: Time for a New Social Contract

Kravitz

2014

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T homas Picketty's new opus, Capital in the 21st Century, has been acclaimed as the book most purchased (Amazon ran out of copies for a brief period in May), most talked about (The Guardian calls it a VIB-very important book), and least read in 2014. As a matter of editorial duty, I did read it (though admittedly not in full). The book contains huge amounts of historical data organized into a number of eyestrain-inducing tables and graphs. However, the basic idea is that over time, the return on capital investment will always exceed the rate of growth of the economy as a whole (which Picketty summarizes in the equation r>g). If this is true, then wealth will tend to concentrate over time, and with it political power. (Picketty views the period of rapid economic growth between World War II and the 1970s as an historical anomaly.) To avoid this plutocratic dystopia, Picketty suggests a solution that will never be implemented: a global, progressive tax on wealth. You have to admire his neo-Marxian audacity.While Picketty's policy prescription may be dubious, his diagnosis of a withering democracy seems frighteningly plausible. But what does this have to do with physicians and specifically physicians' incomes? In 2012, health care accounted for 17 % of the $16.4 trillion US economy. In that same year, physician and clinical services were estimated at $566 billion-or about $820,000 for each of 691,000 actively practicing physicians and surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that growth in physician and clinical services will approach 6 % per year through 2022. Thus, in 2022 physician services will cost the country over $1 trillion (in 2012 dollars)-about $1.2 million for each member of the projected physician workforce of 815,000.Of course, reimbursements for clinical services do not accrue only to doctors, nor do these figures account for practice expenses. Nevertheless, as self-declared leaders of the health care system, physicians need to take some responsibility for managing their share of health care expenditures-what everyone else calls costs, and what we call income. This, I imagine, will require accepting both a ratcheting-down of physician incomes on average and a narrowing of the gap between the highest and lowest paid specialties. Depending on how this plays out, general internists, along with other specialists who trade in "evaluation and management," could end up making about the same or somewhat more, while many procedurally oriented specialists would make somewhat less.Based on 2007 OECD data, 1 I would suggest as a reasonable standard that physician incomes should average about five times the mean national wage-more than most lawyers, professors, engineers, and small business owners, less than many financial analysts and real estate developers. Physicians' time under this proposal would be reimbursed at roughly $125 per hour. To allow for differences in training duration and practice intensity, some specialists could be paid up to 25 % higher and others up to 25 % lowe...

show abstract

Evaluation of a Primary Care-Based Post-Discharge Phone Call Program: Keeping the Primary Care Practice at the Center of Post-hospitalization Care Transition

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

Nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up calls: A mixed study systematic review

Nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up calls: A mixed study systematic review

SGIM-AMDA-AGS Consensus Best Practice Recommendations for Transitioning Patients’ Healthcare from Skilled Nursing Facilities to the Community

Physician Incomes in the Twenty-first Century: Time for a New Social Contract

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About