Conectar
Discharge planning (DP) is essential to ensure continuity of care during patient transitions between inpatient and outpatient settings. Although DP has been legally required for all hospitals in Germany since 2017, several studies show considerable variation in its implementation, likely due to differences in structural characteristics and organisational processes. Both quality and efficiency-enhancing DP processes are particularly important in the context of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of mortality and a major contributor to healthcare costs in Germany. The ‘Ready to Discharge’ (R2D) project investigates the implementation status, influencing factors and outcomes of DP in cardiac units of German hospitals. By integrating quantitative and qualitative data, we aim to identify best practices and provide actionable recommendations for improving DP processes.
A mixed-methods study design will be used. Quantitative analyses will be based on primary data from hospital and patient surveys combined with secondary data from health insurance claims and hospital quality reports. Key outcome measures will include healthcare utilisation outcomes (eg, readmissions, emergency department visits), patient health status outcomes (eg, patient satisfaction, self-rated health) and medication-related outcomes (eg, medication adherence). Qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals will enrich the findings by providing insights into barriers and facilitators to DP.
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bergische University of Wuppertal and the German Federal Office for Social Security. Informed consent will be obtained for all primary data collections. Hospital managing directors will be informed prior to the hospital survey and will be able to withdraw consent. Patients can withdraw their consent at any time. Secondary data will be analysed in pseudonymised form to ensure patient confidentiality. Results will be disseminated through workshops, regional and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.
To extract and interpret quantitative data exploring the effectiveness of family health conversations (FHCs) on family functioning, perceived support, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden and family health in families living with critical or chronic health conditions.
Addressing the health of families affected by critical or chronic illnesses requires focused attention. The effective integration of FHCs is hampered by a scarcity of rigorous quantitative studies that provide solid evidence on best practices and outcomes.
A systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.
The review is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Appropriate studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Databases. Results of the search were imported into the Covidence web-based program. Included were studies with a quantitative research design, delivered to families with critical or chronic health conditions, describing FHCs based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model and/or the Calgary Family Intervention Model, and/or the Illness Beliefs Model, using reliable and validated instruments, published between 2008 and 2023, and written in English.
In total, 24 papers met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen papers used a quasi-experimental design, eight of which included a control group. Two papers used a mixed methods design, and six papers were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A statistically significant effect of FHCs on family functioning was reported in two RCTs and three quasi-experimental papers. We also found that a statistically significant effect of FHCs was reported on perceived support in 9 of 15 papers, quality of life in 4 of 11 papers and caregiver burden in 1 of 3 papers.
The interventions reviewed revealed variability and partial results concerning the effectiveness of FHCs on family functioning. More rigorous research about short-term, intermediate- and long-term effectiveness is needed before conclusions can be drawn.
The study is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (File S1).
No patient or public contribution. Data were gathered from previously published studies.
FreshRSS 