Search

Background moving into long-term institutional care is a significant life event for any individual. Predictors of institutional care admission from community-dwellers and people with dementia have been described, but those from the acute hospital setting have not been systematically reviewed. Our aim was to establish predictive factors for discharge to institutional care following acute hospitalisation. Methods we registered and conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015023497). We searched MEDLINE; EMBASE and CINAHL Plus in September 2015. We included observational studies of patients admitted directly to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation where factors associated with institutionalisation were reported. Results from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). Studies were heterogeneous, with the proportions discharged to a care home 3–77% (median 15%). Eleven studies (n = 12,642), of moderate to low quality, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The need for institutional long-term care was associated with age (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.00–1.04), female sex (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03–1.92), dementia (pooled OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24–3.70) and functional dependency (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.58–2.69). Conclusions discharge to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation is common, but current data do not allow prediction of who will make this transition. Potentially important predictors evaluated in community cohorts have not been examined in hospitalised cohorts. Understanding these predictors could help identify individuals at risk early in their admission, and support them in this transition or potentially intervene to reduce their risk.

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice. We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools. We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review – along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.