Rapid evidence assessment of approaches to community neurological nursing care for people with neurological conditions post-discharge from acute care hospital.

Neurological conditions represent leading causes of non-fatal burden of disease that will consume a large proportion of projected healthcare expenditure. Inconsistent access to integrated healthcare and other services for people with long-term neurological conditions stresses acute care services. The purpose of this rapid evidence assessment, conducted February-June 2016, was to review the evidence supporting community neurological nursing approaches for patients with neurological conditions post-discharge from acute care hospitals. CINAHL Plus with Full Text and MEDLINE were searched for English-language studies published January 2000 to June 2016. Data were extracted using a purpose-designed protocol. Studies describing community neurological nursing care services post-discharge for adults with stroke, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease were included and their quality was assessed. Two qualitative and three quantitative studies were reviewed. Two themes were identified in the narrative summary of findings: (i) continuity of care and self-management and (ii) variable impact on clinical or impairment outcomes. There was low quality evidence of patient satisfaction, improved patient social activity, depression scores, stroke knowledge and lifestyle modification associated with post-discharge care by neurological nurses as an intervention. There were few studies and weak evidence supporting the use of neurology-generalist nurses to promote continuity of care for people with long-term or progressive, long-term neurological conditions post-discharge from acute care hospital. Further research is needed to provide role clarity to facilitate comparative studies and evaluations of the effectiveness of community neurological nursing models of care.

Impact and costs of home-based trial of void compared with the day care setting.

AIMS: This paper presents the relative merits and comparative costs of conducting trial of void using Hospital-In-The-Home vs. the Day Procedure Unit. BACKGROUND: Hospitals increasingly discharge patients with acute urinary retention with indwelling urinary catheters. For these to be removed and patients supported to return to normal urinary function, outpatient or in-home services are used. To date, the relative effectiveness and costs of Hospital-In-The-Home care and Day Procedure Unit care for trial of void have not been examined. DESIGN: This retrospective study used a static-group comparison design. METHODS: Hospital administrative data from 1 February 2009-30 March 2011 for patients having trial of void in the Day Procedure Unit (n = 107) and Hospital-In-The-Home (n = 163) of a tertiary hospital in Western Australia were compared in terms of patient outcomes and costs. RESULTS: Day Procedure Unit patients had longer wait times than Hospital-In-The-Home patients; there was no difference between the two groups for average per patient days of service or successful first trials. Hospital-In-The-Home care did not increase the overall period of care. Per patient average ward-equivalent cost in the Day Procedure Unit was A$396 higher than the Hospital-In-The-Home ward-equivalent cost. The average cost saving per patient for Hospital-In-The-Home care including trial of void cost and emergency department visits was A$117. CONCLUSION: Patient outcomes from Hospital-In-The-Home trial of void in low-risk patients were comparable to those of Day Procedure Unit care and less costly. Hospital-In-The-Home care for this well-defined procedure could permit more efficient management of patient throughput.