Background: Due to the increasing number of older people with multi-morbidity, the demand for outpatient geriatric rehabilitation (OGR) will also increase. Objective: To assess the effects of OGR on the primary outcome functional performance (FP) and secondary outcomes: length of in-patient stay, re-admission rate, patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. We also aim to describe the organisation and content of OGR. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Five databases were queried from inception to July 2022. We selected randomised controlled trials written in English, focusing on multidisciplinary interventions related to OGR, included participants aged ≥65 and reported one of the main outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on FP, patients’ quality of life, length of stay and re-admissions. The structural, procedural and environmental aspects of OGR were systematically mapped. Results: We selected 24 studies involving 3,405 participants. The meta-analysis showed no significant effect on the primary outcome FP (activity). It demonstrated a significant effect of OGR on shortening length of in-patient stay (P = 0.03, MD = −2.41 days, 95%CI: [−4.61—0.22]). Frequently used elements of OGR are: inpatient start of OGR with an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, close cooperation with primary care, an OGR coordinator, individual goal setting and education for both patient and caregiver. Conclusion: This review showed that OGR is as effective as usual care on FP activity. It shows low certainty of evidence for OGR being effective in reducing the length of inpatient stay. Further research is needed on the various frequently used elements of OGR
BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing number of older people with multi-morbidity, the demand for outpatient geriatric rehabilitation (OGR) will also increase.OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of OGR on the primary outcome functional performance (FP) and secondary outcomes: length of in-patient stay, re-admission rate, patients' and caregivers' quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. We also aim to describe the organisation and content of OGR.METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Five databases were queried from inception to July 2022. We selected randomised controlled trials written in English, focusing on multidisciplinary interventions related to OGR, included participants aged ≥65 and reported one of the main outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on FP, patients' quality of life, length of stay and re-admissions. The structural, procedural and environmental aspects of OGR were systematically mapped.RESULTS: We selected 24 studies involving 3,405 participants. The meta-analysis showed no significant effect on the primary outcome FP (activity). It demonstrated a significant effect of OGR on shortening length of in-patient stay (P = 0.03, MD = -2.41 days, 95%CI: [-4.61-0.22]). Frequently used elements of OGR are: inpatient start of OGR with an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, close cooperation with primary care, an OGR coordinator, individual goal setting and education for both patient and caregiver.CONCLUSION: This review showed that OGR is as effective as usual care on FP activity. It shows low certainty of evidence for OGR being effective in reducing the length of inpatient stay. Further research is needed on the various frequently used elements of OGR.
MULTIFILE
Background: Team-based palliative care interventions have shown positive results for patients at the end of life in both hospital and community settings. However, evidence on the effectiveness of transmural, that is, spanning hospital and home, team-based palliative care collaborations is limited. Aim: To systematically review whether transmural team-based palliative care interventions can prevent hospital admissions and increase death at home. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), PsychINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane Library (Wiley) were systematically searched until January 2021. Studies incorporating teams in which hospital and community professionals co-managed patients, hospital-based teams with community follow-up, and case-management interventions led by palliative care teams were included. Data was extracted by two researchers independently. Results: About 19 studies were included involving 6614 patients, of whom 2202 received an intervention. The overall pooled odds ratio of at least one hospital (re)admissions was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.68) in favor of the intervention group. The highest reduction in admission was in the hospital-based teams with community follow-up: OR 0.21 (95% CI 0.07–0.66). The pooled effect on home deaths was 2.19 (95% CI 1.26–3.79), favoring the intervention, with also the highest in the hospital-based teams: OR 4.77 (95% CI 1.23–18.47). However, studies had high heterogeneity regarding intervention, study population, and follow-up time. Conclusion: Transmural team-based palliative care interventions, especially hospital-based teams that follow-up patients at home, show an overall effect on lowering hospital admissions and increasing the number of patients dying at home. However, broad clinical and statistical heterogeneity of included studies results in uncertainty about the effect size.
