Discharge Planning for People with Inpatient Hyperglycaemia: A Review on Pharmacological Management.

Inadequate glycaemic control post-discharge is the root cause of readmission in people with diabetes mellitus (DM) and is often linked to improper discharge planning (DP). A structured DP plays a crucial role in ensuring continuing home care and avoiding readmissions. DP should help patients in self-care and provide appropriate guidance to maintain optimal glycaemic control. There is a scarcity of reports and recommendations on the proper DP for people with DM on insulin therapy. The present review provides important consideration based on experts' opinions from the National Insulin and Incretin summit (NIIS), focusing on the effective treatment strategies at the time of discharge, especially for insulin therapy. A review of literature from PubMed and Embase was conducted. The consensus was derived, and recommendations were made on effective DP for patients with DM. Recommendations were drawn at the NIIS for post-discharge treatment for medical and surgical cases, stress-induced hyperglycaemia, elderly, pregnant women, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The committee also recommended a comprehensive checklist to assist the physicians during discharge.

When is it safe for the liver donor to be discharged home and prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations? - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on discharge criteria after living liver donation (LLD). OBJECTIVES: To identify the features for fit for discharge checklist after LLD to prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations and to provide international expert recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. The critical outcomes included were complications rates and liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR) (CRD42021260725). RESULTS: Total 57/1710 studies were included in qualitative analysis and 28/57 on the final analysis. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The complications rate was reported in 20/28 studies and ranged from 7.8% to 71.2%. Post hepatectomy liver function was reported in 13 studies. The Quality of Evidence (QoE) was Low and Very-Low for complications rate and liver function test, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and prevention of donor complications should be crucial in decision making of discharge. Pain and diet control, removal of all drains and catheters, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and use routine imaging (CT scan or liver ultrasound) before discharge should be included as fit for discharge checklist (QoE; Low | GRADE of recommendation; Strong). Transient Impaired liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR), a prognostic marker of outcome after liver resection, usually occurs after donor right hepatectomy and should be monitored. Improving trends for bilirubin and INR value should be observed by day 5 post hepatectomy and be included in the fit for discharge checklist. (QoE; Very-Low | GRADE; Strong).

Consensus and development of document for management of stabilized acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in India.

AIM: Ensuring adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is an effective strategy to reduce mortality and readmission rates for heart failure (HF). Use of a checklist is one of the best tools to ensure GDMT. The aim was to develop a consensus document with a robust checklist for stabilized acute decompensated HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. While there are multiple checklists available, an India-specific checklist that is easy to fill and validated by regional and national subject matter experts (SMEs) is required. METHODOLOGY: A total of 25 Cardiology SMEs who consented to participate from India discussed data from literature, current evidence, international guidelines and practical experiences in two national and four regional meetings. RESULTS: Recommendations included HF management, treatment optimization, and patient education. The checklist should be filled at four time points- (a) transition from intensive care unit to ward, (b) at discharge, (c) 1st follow-up and (d) subsequent follow-up. The checklist is the responsibility of the consultant or the treating physician which can be delegated to a junior resident or a trained HF nurse. CONCLUSION: This checklist will ensure GDMT, simplify transition of care and can be used by all doctors across India. Institutions, associations, and societies should recommend this checklist for adaptability in public and private hospital. Hospital administrations should roll out policy for adoption of checklist by ensuring patient files have the checklist at the time of discharge and encourage practice of filling it diligently during follow-up visits.

Usefulness of a personalized algorithm-based discharge checklist in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of a personalized discharge checklist (PCL) based on simple baseline characteristics on mortality, readmission for heart failure (HF), and quality of care in patients hospitalized for acute HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We designed an algorithm to generate PCL, based on 2016 HF European Society of Cardiology Guidelines and the screening of common comorbidities in elderly HF patients. We prospectively included 139 patients hospitalized for HF from May 2018 to October 2018. A PCL was fulfilled for each patient at admission and 24 to 48 hours before the planned discharge. A control cohort of 182 consecutive patients was retrospectively included from May 2017 to October 2017. The primary composite endpoint was mortality or readmission for HF at 6 months. The secondary endpoints were mortality, readmission for HF, and quality of care (evidence-based medications, management of HF comorbidities, and planned care plan). There was no difference among baseline characteristics between PCL and control cohorts; mean age was 78.1 ± 12.2 vs. 79.0 ± 12.5 years old (P = 0.46) and 61 patients (43.9%) vs. 63 (34.6%) had HF with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% (P = 0.24). During the 6 month follow-up period, 59 patients (42.4%) reached the primary endpoint in the PCL cohort vs. 92 patients (50.5%) in the control cohort [hazard ratio (HR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.57-1.09), P = 0.15]. Subgroup analysis including only patients with either altered (<40%) or mid-range or preserved (≥40%) LVEF showed no significant difference among groups. There was a non-significant trend toward a reduction in HF readmission rate in the PCL group [38 patients (27.3%) vs. 64 patients (35.2%), HR: 0.73, 95%CI (0.49-1.09), P = 0.13]. There was no difference regarding survival or the use of evidence-based medications. A higher proportion of patients were screened and treated for iron and vitamin D deficiencies (53.2% vs. 35.7%, P < 0.01 and 73.4% vs. 29.7%, P < 0.01, respectively), as well as malnutrition supplemented in the PCL group. There was a higher referral to HF follow-up programme in the PCL group but not to telemedicine or cardiac rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, the use of a PCL did not improve outcomes at 6 months in patients hospitalized for acute HF. There was a non-significant trend towards a reduction in HF readmission rate in the PCL group. In addition, the management of HF comorbidities was significantly improved by PCL with a better referral to follow-up programme. A multicentre study is warranted to assess the usefulness of a simple costless personalized checklist in a large HF patients' population.

Improving quality of care in patients with decompensated acute heart failure using a discharge checklist.

BACKGROUND: The use of a discharge checklist may decrease heart failure readmission rate. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a checklist in patients hospitalized for heart failure, in terms of mortality, cardiovascular mortality and readmission rates, and quality of care, including therapeutic optimization and careplan planning. METHODS: We prospectively used a discharge checklist in 103 patients hospitalized for heart failure between July 2015 and January 2016. Quality of care and outcomes were compared with a retrospective cohort of 137 patients with same inclusion criteria, hospitalized between June 2014 and December 2014. The primary endpoints were total and cardiovascular mortality and readmissions for heart failure at 6months. The secondary endpoint was quality of care rendered, measured by evidence-based medications, appropriate medication uptitration and planned discharge care. RESULTS: At 6months, there were no differences between the checklist and control cohorts in the rates of all-cause mortality (10.7% vs. 13.1%; P=0.57), cardiovascular mortality (8.7% vs. 10.9%; P=0.58) and readmission (29.1% vs. 32.1%; P=0.62). Follow-up after discharge was better planned in the checklist group. The use of the checklist yielded therapeutic optimization with a higher dose of beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers, especially in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) (P=0.03 and P=0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a simple discharge checklist in patients with acute heart failure showed no benefit in terms of readmission and mortality rates; however, it yielded better quality of care, including therapeutic optimization and careplan planning.

Improving Transitional Care: The Role of Handoffs and Discharge Checklists in Hematologic Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Transitional care from inpatient to outpatient settings is a high-risk time for medical errors and missed follow-up appointments. Discharge checklists and handoffs are effective tools that lead to improved quality of care and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this project was to implement an evidence-based discharge checklist and handoff template to improve and standardize transitional care from hospital to home for patients with hematologic malignancies. METHODS: The advanced practice providers (APPs) completed the discharge checklist at least 24 hours prior to discharge. The APPs requested appointments through the electronic health record using the discharge handoff tool. Chi-square analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Implementation of the discharge checklist resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of patients who had a follow-up appointment scheduled prior to discharge. The discharge handoff tool standardized communication between inpatient and outpatient providers.

The development and implementation of a discharge checklist for psychiatric inpatients: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Readmission rates are a routinely used measure of patient and service outcomes, potentially improved by discharge planning. This pilot study aimed to develop a discharge checklist for psychiatric inpatients, exploring its feasibility, applicability, and impact on readmission rates. METHODS: The study used a quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention design. The checklist was designed from an evidence-based literature review, and introduced for a three-month period, comparing 28-day readmission rates with the previous three months using interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Checklists were completed for 80% of patients in the trial period, with 100% completion of checklist items. Demographic and clinical details for pre- and post-intervention groups were closely aligned. There was a small, but statistically non-significant, reduction in readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate of checklist completion. The lack of significant reductions in readmission rates supports more development of the checklist application and design before a longer implementation period and re-evaluation.