Factors that contribute to the diversion of patients from long-term care
Intended for healthcare professionals
Art & Science Previous     Next

Factors that contribute to the diversion of patients from long-term care

Liz Lees Nurse consultant in acute medicine and senior research fellow, Heartlands Hospital, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham
Ciara Dowling Clinical nurse manager, Synge Interim Care Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin
Mary Day Director of nursing/head of operations, Synge Interim Care Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin

Liz Lees and colleagues evaluate which aspects of intermediate care enabled individuals in the recovery phase to be discharged home

This service evaluation aimed to identify the factors at an interim care unit that contributed to the diversion of patients from long-term care to care at home.

A triangulated, mixed methods approach was adopted. Data were collated from an analysis of individual patient case notes; interviews with patients, carers and relatives; and workshops with unit staff.

Distinctive and overlapping core themes emerged from the data. Patients and relatives cited having extra time in the unit to adjust, with staff encouragement and persistence to tackle their main problems, in addition to achieving seamless care at home and the ability to envisage a life after hospital. The staff workshops revealed attitudes that supported patient empowerment, shared decision making and patient-centred solutions.

The successful diversion of patients from long-term care is multifaceted and dynamic. It is clear that a decision to pursue a different end-point destination has to occur, with patients’ and relatives’ consent; that is, to avoid transfer from acute care to long-term care. The optimism and self-belief created by this decision drive staff and patients towards the same goal: improved patient outcomes and, for some, eventual diversion from long-term care.

Nursing Older People. 25, 5, 19-24. doi: 10.7748/nop2013.06.25.5.19.e432R1

Correspondence

lizlees@aol.com

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Accepted: 08 February 2013

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more