Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Intermediate care: for better or worse?: process evaluation of an intermediate care model between a university hospital and a residential home.
Plochg, T., Delnoij, D.M.J., Kruk, T.F. van der, Janmaat, T.A.C.M., Klazinga, N.S. Intermediate care: for better or worse?: process evaluation of an intermediate care model between a university hospital and a residential home. BMC Health Services Research: 2005, 5(38)
Lees online
Background: Intermediate care was developed in order to bridge acute, primary and social care, primarily for elderly persons with complex care needs. Such bridging initiatives are intended to reduce hospital stays and improve continuity of care. Although many models assume positive effects, it is often ambiguous what the benefits are and whether they can be transferred to other settings. This is due to the heterogeneity of intermediate care models and the variety of collaborating partners that set up such models. Quantitative evaluation captures only a limited series of generic structure, process and outcome parameters. More detailed information is needed to assess the dynamics of intermediate care delivery, and to find ways to improve the quality of care. Against this background, the functioning of a low intensity early discharge model of intermediate care set up in a residential home for patients released from an Amsterdam university hospital has been evaluated. The aim of this study was to produce knowledge for management to improve quality of care, and to provide more generalisable insights into the accumulated impact of such a model. Methods: A process evaluation was carried out using quantitative and qualitative methods. Registration forms and patient questionnaires were used to quantify the patient population in the model. Statistical analysis encompassed T-tests and chi-squared test to assess significance. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 staff members representing all disciplines working with the model. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using both 'open' and 'framework' approaches. Results: Despite high expectations, there were significant problems. A heterogeneous patient population, a relatively unqualified staff and cultural differences between both collaborating partners impeded implementation and had an impact on the functioning of the model. Conclusion: We concluded that setting up a low intensity early discharge model of intermediate care between a university hospital and a residential home is less straightforward than was originally perceived by management, and that quality of care needs careful monitoring to ensure the change is for the better. (aut. ref.)
Background: Intermediate care was developed in order to bridge acute, primary and social care, primarily for elderly persons with complex care needs. Such bridging initiatives are intended to reduce hospital stays and improve continuity of care. Although many models assume positive effects, it is often ambiguous what the benefits are and whether they can be transferred to other settings. This is due to the heterogeneity of intermediate care models and the variety of collaborating partners that set up such models. Quantitative evaluation captures only a limited series of generic structure, process and outcome parameters. More detailed information is needed to assess the dynamics of intermediate care delivery, and to find ways to improve the quality of care. Against this background, the functioning of a low intensity early discharge model of intermediate care set up in a residential home for patients released from an Amsterdam university hospital has been evaluated. The aim of this study was to produce knowledge for management to improve quality of care, and to provide more generalisable insights into the accumulated impact of such a model. Methods: A process evaluation was carried out using quantitative and qualitative methods. Registration forms and patient questionnaires were used to quantify the patient population in the model. Statistical analysis encompassed T-tests and chi-squared test to assess significance. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 staff members representing all disciplines working with the model. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using both 'open' and 'framework' approaches. Results: Despite high expectations, there were significant problems. A heterogeneous patient population, a relatively unqualified staff and cultural differences between both collaborating partners impeded implementation and had an impact on the functioning of the model. Conclusion: We concluded that setting up a low intensity early discharge model of intermediate care between a university hospital and a residential home is less straightforward than was originally perceived by management, and that quality of care needs careful monitoring to ensure the change is for the better. (aut. ref.)